Comments on: Obama’s punitive liberalism, or why treating success as a form of failure is wrong

By: Confiscatory Tax Rate Dreams From My Father

Confiscatory Tax Rate Dreams From My Father — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:00:25 +0000

[...] the rubric of fairness

By: Roger’s Rules » The 2 percent solution, or, the tyranny of the majority returns with a vengeance

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:50:14 +0000

[...] But raising revenue isn’t really the point. The chief goal of the President’s 2 percent solution is, first, to punish success and then to render its repetition impossible. What we have here is an perfect example of what James Piereson has called “punitive liberalism,” i.e., the distinctly illiberal pursuit of vengeance against class enemies through policies that may be counterproductive but that have the advantage of penalizing a part of the population that so-called liberals find distasteful. I wrote about this dimension of the President’s platform during the campaign (see “Obama’s punitive liberalism, or why treating success as a form of failure is wrong“). [...]

By: Roger’s Rules » Commander-in-chief vs. Nanny-in-chief, or two cheers for selfishness

Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:19:47 +0000

[...] in this space a few weeks ago, Obama espouses a form of what James Piereson has called “punitive liberalism.” Because he regards the American people as essentially selfish (a sentiment memorably [...]

By: Punitive Liberalism « Thinking Things Through

Punitive Liberalism « Thinking Things Through — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:40:55 +0000

[...] I was not familiar with the phrase “punitive liberalism” until I read this essay. The term originates with James Pierson who wrote: the Democratic party was gradually taken over by [...]

By: Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » The year was 2008, Obama was about to become president, and everyone was finally about to become equal…Why am I suddenly thinking so much about John Galt, Winston Smith, and Harrison Bergeron?

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:00:13 +0000

[...] observed in this space a few weeks ago, Obama espouses a form of what James Piereson has called “punitive liberalism.” Because he regards the American people as essentially selfish (a sentiment memorably reinforced [...]

By: Roger’s Rules » The recalcitrance of facts, or Barney Frank as Doctor Who

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:04:23 +0000

[...] Team Obama says, “Sure, but it’s going to cost you.” [...]

By: Jeebus

Jeebus — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:32:44 +0000

Whew…talk about a wingnut circle jerk. It must suck to be so wrong so often. Here’s an idea…why don’t all of you “successful” people take all of your money and shove it up your collective assess sideways.

Peace,
Jeebus

By: Ravalli County News » Blog Archive » Punitive Liberalism

Ravalli County News » Blog Archive » Punitive Liberalism — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:30:41 +0000

[...] Roger Kimball: Obama’s punitive liberalism, or why treating success as a form of failure is wrong [...]

By: Timothy Birdnow » Punitive Liberalism

Timothy Birdnow » Punitive Liberalism — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:37:34 +0000

[...] Mathewson sends us a terrific article from Pajamas Media by Roger Kimball on “Punitive Liberalism“, that vice which has infected the Democratic (sic) Party and a large swath of our fellow citizenry [...]

By: Rubicon

Rubicon — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:08:47 +0000

If the liberal socialists want to be “fair,” then all the rich ones need do is “send a check to the Department of the Treasury.” That check can be in any amount they wish to make it to assuage their “guilt.” There is no rule, no law, no policy, no regulation, that prohibits or inhibits them writing their “guilt checks.”
Now, just how many of those checks have we seen, or does anyone expect us to ‘ever’ see?
The word NONE comes to mind.
The national service idea reminds me of the “brown-shirts’ idea that lead one nation into chaos. Mandatory or compulsory national service under the guise of “service” which these guys want, is not like anything we expect it to be. It will be a failure & will lead to something I think could be dangerous.
As for the “punishment aspects or the atonement white men are to pay, or that America is to pay, for “misdeeds, etc., what we have here is a political philosophy trying to undermine other political philosophies by relegating the latter to that of criminal, while maintaining the former is “all good, decent, and ‘fair.’”
Assigning “blame” to all white men, is simply idiotic. That’s like blaming all black men for rape or drug additions. Its like blaming all Mexicans for laziness & social services abuses.
Trying to find someone to blame is merely another attempt by one group to gain advantage over others so they can control them. If liberal socialists think this method will last more than a year or two, they are truly fool’s. No one is going to buy into collective guilt & penance for past transgressions someone has decided they committed.
And America, like every other nation on the planet, has made mistakes, but in the end her goods far exceed any bads her detractors can conjure up.
The one world government idea also sucks. In America and many other nations on the planet, we have large governments that make mistakes. It takes awhile in some cases, but we eventually correct those mistakes.
Imagine if you can one government, huge, gargantuan really, issuing orders & controlling armies & law enforcement. Imagine trying to get that body to admit its errors & correct them. If you think for even a nano second that would happen, I have some ocean front coastal property in New Mexico I want to sell you!
We may have many nations making many mistakes in the name of their peoples. But at least we have nations that can correct their mistakes. In a one world government, even mentioning the government made a mistake will get you jailed or dead!
We have enough problems dealing with the huge bureaucracies we have here in America that the government has established. Why would we have an unelected international government body, whose bureaucratic side would dwarf even America’s bureaucracies?
DHS failed New Orleans. Now, imagine a one world government bureaucracy, which by necessity will be unelected appointed bureaucrats, responding to such catastrophes?
We will be better off with a planet that has over 190 individual national governments that respond to the peoples of those nations who elect them. One world order, means, despotism on a global scale. The UN represents what such a despotic organization a one world government would become.