quote:

I think that's probably the mindset of your friend's daughter too.

I was over at his house the other day. The daughter is home from college. She stays in her room like a refugee. As my friend quipped, compared to the "Progressive" college town she was living in, she thinks his little rural town is a third world country. If I knew her phone number I would text her something like "Hussein." LOL.

Oh, god, Ahmadnutjob is playing the liberal left like fiddles. It's amazing that these evil dictators are so savvy while the "compassionate and nice people" are such rubes. A part of me (only a small part) cheers the nutjob. If he can play these bleeding heart liberals like fiddles (and he can), then they (but not me) deserve what they get. Unfortunately, people like me will tend to be the collateral damage of liberal gullibility.

There really are liberals out there who probably feel simpatico with Ahmadnutjob because they think he's one of them. After all, he says he wants to defeat capitalism. The left also wants to defeat capitalism.

What the gullible liberals don't understand is that it isn't free markets or corporations that Amadnutjob hates. It's individual freedom that he hates. Hey, there's a lot of money, prestige, and power in being a dictator. He's not against profit. But freedom and individual choice are not assets to a dictator.

But liberals are gullible and naive. When the fascists, dictators, and nutjobs of the world bemoan the fact that there are poor, they don't give a rat's ass about the poor. But they do know that it's good PR for gullible Westerners on the left. This is exactly the message that many of them want to believe.

As Rush would say (and he's said this before about the various pronouncements from Osama bin Laden), the Iranian leader sounds just like a Democrat. And he's right. Although it's likely Ahmadnutjob is simply engaging in self-serving propaganda in order to deflect attention away from his own nutjob and barbaric regime, the Democrats and the left really do believe this stuff wholeheartedly. They believe that capitalism must be dismantled and that America should be subservient to "global governance." I'd love to hear what Trifed thinks of that article.

Oh how I do love a good typo.

Andy McCarthy has another great article:

Contra Buckley

quote:

Control of Congress is not what inspires them. [The Tea Party.] The Republicans had control of Congress when the seeds were sown for much of what now ails us: for the prescription-drug entitlement that begat Obamacare; for the auto-company bailout that begat Obama-motors; for the stimulus that begat the deluge; for the TARP that begat the very slush-fund antics TARP opponents warned against; for the McCain Amendment that begat the Mirandizing of terrorists; etc. At every turn, the GOP-controlled Congress — at the urging of weathervane RINOs and a punditocracy consumed by tactical politics at the expense of limited-government principle — was Big Government Lite. (And “lite” is used advisedly here, for it is lite only by comparison to the monstrosity to which it gave way). That President Obama has made a canyon of the hole we were in does not mean he’s wrong when he says Republican leadership drove us “into a ditch.”

The movement now ascendant in the country is not about anything so small as the question of which party has control over the Senate in 2011. It is about the future of freedom and prosperity, about the kind of nation we will be. Its goal is to return the United States to a pre–New Deal understanding of the Constitution’s limits on federal power, and to a pre–Baby Boom Left’s appreciation of the greatness of America. That is not a project for one election cycle. It is the work of a generation.

The Buckley Rule has no place in that enterprise. The object is to make Big Government pols of both parties members of an endangered species. And unlike the callow GOP establishment, the tea party is bold enough to believe good ideas — applied, limited-government conservatism — can win even in Delaware . . . and Massachusetts.

A great article on free speech, cowardice, and standing together against Islamic threats:

Who Is the Next Molly Norris?

This article also makes a great point about the chic cowards on the left such as Jon Stewart:

quote:

With this in mind, I cannot help but wonder that if Norris had been more assertive in her own defense then others would have been more eager to stand beside her. Perhaps Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would have offered comedic reassurance. But then again why would they risk the enmity of Anwar al-Alwaki when they can make fun of the Tea Party and Christianity with the knowledge that no one will call for the streets to be filled with their blood. Besides, Stewart wasn't exactly a profile in courage during the South Park controversy.

This article takes a funny look at the blather of liberals, especially concerning the new Democrat logo.



You might even come to understand the Democratic Party itself as a cult — and a stupid, silly, brainless, and vacuous one at that. It's becoming the party of stupid people.

quote:

Somewhat recklessly you decide to test the blow-to-the-head theory by engaging the kid in a rational conversation. "Well, you did create change that matters. You screwed up our family finances as far as the eye can see. You talk about ideas and ideals. But all kinds of people have ideas and ideals. Wylie Coyote had ideas and ideals. And has there ever been a party in history -- good, bad or ugly -- that wasn't made up of 'policies and people, history and purpose'? If you want to talk about change, name some concrete and specific ways you're going to change your idiotic behavior, your 'policies and people,' your 'history and purpose,' so that I will have any rational reason to trust you with my credit card ever again."

The kid blinks, as if some internal hard drive is casting about for the appropriate sound bite. Click: the drive finds it and the lights come on again in his eyes. "Call it what you will," he continues, "this new identity for our family captures the spirit that unites us all. Us -- all of us -- are working for the change that matters."

And the caveat that the The Stupid People require hearing again and again is that, just because Democrats are idiots does not mean the Republican Party is right and is the savior of all. Good god, but that's how people think. Many can no longer think in terms of fundamental ideals and principles and then see who, if anyone, is espousing and supporting those things (of whatever party, or no party). Like brainless cult members they say "Well, Republicans did x, y, and z so therefore every stupid thing that we stand for must be right." They don't say it that way, of course, but the implication is clearly there.

As for the new logo, Michelle Malkin makes the point that it's ACORN-ish. What to me is interesting is that it's consistent with the kind of leftist souless tripe that movement is known for. And the whole bulls-eye look of it is a bit odd. And why the hell the two different typefaces? But I hope The Master wants to comment on this. Hell, maybe he'll like it.

That is a great article. Thalo.net should pick up where Molly Norris left off.

I still would delight in messing with the whole idea... like what if we had a "draw pictures of people drawing Muhammad day?" or have a day where people submit pictures of kitties AS IF THEY HAD BEEN DRAWN BY MUHAMMAD.

Draw a Qur'an day. Draw Jesus dressed up as Muhammad. Draw Abu Bakr day (Muhammad's successor).

Or, how about draw abstract expressionist Muhammad? Where the image can't be figural, but has to be totally abstract or geometric (like islamic art).

But my favorite would be, draw pictures of men NAMED Muhammad who are not the prophet. There are a buttload of Muhammads in the world who are not holy prophets.

That is quite a beautiful logo, I must say. Except for the text below, which is sort of "meh." I would not have gone with slabs. I would have, in fact dropped the word "Democrats" and just kept "change that matters."

Alone, as on the T-shirt, it's really handsome. Their marketeers must have been working full time. Well, at least I hope the graphic designer got some stimulus money for that design.

Meanwhile, it's going to be easy to goof on. As in: "yeah, we give the Democrats a 'D' too." Or you make an "F" logo and say "This is the grade they should have gotten!" lol.

On the other hand, if the Democrat Party is looking to collect unto itself the most gullible, stupid, dull and mind-shatteringly-lugubrious people to "The Cause" then well done. It's not in my DNA to reflexively hate America and want to replace individual achievement with a Hugo Chavez-like Marxist regime where "The Rich" are hated. But some want that.

And if the purpose of a logo is to clearly communicate that sort of vibe, then perhaps well done. You've got the stupid Obama circle. You've got the blue. And how funny they have that little bit of red in there (although when the logo without the logotype is used, you'll just have only the creepy leftist blue showing).

Shouldn't there be an elephant or the U.S. Constitution in the middle of that bulls-eye? Maybe I'm reading it wrong. And I can't decide what is worse, the bulls-eye motif or that horrible mix of typefaces.

Well, I disagree. I think it's truly a horrible logo. Wearing that on a t-shirt would make me feel embarrassed. It would be like advertising myself as one of the gullible and vacuous Pepsi Generation, especially after the connotations of the "O" Obama logo. I truly mean that if you wore this bull-eye on your chest, it would mark you as stupid, just as it marks those as stupid who still have an Obama bumper sticker on their car.

Haha, I think you're too close to it, brother. It's actually a pretty smart looking logo formally. Clean, simple, compelling. It evokes the "D" that you used to see on ballots, in a circle... and the circle echoes the Obama logo, and that's their guy.

What it stands for, yeah, you'd never catch me wearing it. I think Democrats are evil, and this will be their symbol. In effect, it will be their swastika. Which was also a powerful and attractive logo. It works WAY better than the Obama logo, which is not only boring, it's charge is only for one guy in campaign mode, which weakens it semiotically. It's already dated. If Obama uses it in '12 he will be at a disadvantage because the charge has gone negative.

The Obama logo doesn't say "team" like this one does. This one is way better suited to an ideological cult, and any democrat politician can deploy it, not just Hussein. It's got a better gestalt, not as Pespi, it's more sober and less goofy. I like the proportion, the use of negative space, the colors... I'd give the DESIGN an "A." If one of my students did it. I guarantee you they spent a fortune on that one. It's quality design.

It ain't a horrible logo visually by any stretch, unless of course you've pre-charged it, which you have, lol. But I think it's quite visually appealing.

And I think it will play with their audience. I think we'll be seeing the vacuous, gullible Pepsi generation go nuts over it. It's going to get fully charged and iconized before we know it. Of course wearing a great logo doesn't mean you are smart, or right, or rational. It just means the people who made the T-shirts spent big money on a halfway decent graphic designer.

Nope. Still hate it.

Here's a bit from Facebook:

Joy, I agree about the double-standard. But if we look at that so-called double-standard we'll get to the root of it: The press is liberal, the left are zealous, and conservatives hold themselves to a higher standard regarding truth, by and large.

That is to say, those who are zealously partisan and drinking the kool-aid of the left indeed have a double standard. They exempt themselves from the things they charge other people with. Those who are half out of their minds with zealousness — regarding any cause — do not care that they lie and manipulate in order to advance that cause. They think it is justified.

But what we call a "double standard" is really just partisanship over truth. It's about winning and power being more important than integrity and principle. But to say there is a "double standard" is to suggest there there is someone out there misjudging things. No, it's just a very deceitful and disingenuous left and a press who shares their ideology.

Those in the mainstream media and in the education system are left-of-center (and often completely Marxist or Communist). This actually helps to create the atmosphere for intellectually and emotionally outfitting people to react positively to the left's double standard (to their lying and manipulation). Instead of teaching people to be critical thinkers you can indeed teach them to be kool-aid drinkers. And that's a big problem. That's what is called "indoctrination." And in many cases you can see it's as effective as any kind of cult programming.

But truth knows only one standard. And that's why I'll never get on the bandwagon of the idea you'll often hear of "Just shut up and support your local Republican because it's more important that we win." No it's not. There's no "winning" if all we do is elect RINOs who are Leftists Lite. That's still advancing the same agenda. And this is America. It's supposed to be principle over power. I don't join those who want power for power's sake. I'm long past the juvenile stage where it's important to me that "my guys" win. Criminy, we're supposed to be Americans. I would vote in a heartbeat for a Democrat if he or she believed in upholding our Constitution, if he or she believed squarely in the free market as opposed to Marxist class warfare, if he or she believed in the individual having as much power over their lives as possible as opposed to the government becoming ever larger and more intrusive. Why wouldn't I? I believe in principles. I'm not a mindless fanboy of any party.

Note that the rules of engagement for the left and radical Islam are pretty much the same. They feel at liberty to lie and deceive at will in the furtherance of their cause. But for those who truly believe in liberty, justice, and morality, this is a contradictory idea. To face the left is to face down their lies and to do so with facts, evidence, and logic...and all the persuasive eloquence one can muster.

Yes, Republicans need to be tough. I'm tired of the girly-men. They should have a pair like Sarah Palin does. This is where the "Mama Grizzly" concept comes in. If women (and more than a few men) will simply refuse to get all light-headed and flushed with a case of the vapors when someone (man or woman) speaks directly and plainly about the important issues of our day, we'll be well on our way to taking off our petticoats and wrangling successfully with our opponents. But we can't do so if we hold to the absurd proposition that whenever the left screams we've then supposedly exceeded the bounds of propriety. Screw that. That's just being stupid. And yet wimpy Republicans have too often in the past played by those very rules. And, to be fair, they were simply responding to the wimpy zeitgeist that was out there.

And I do believe that wimpy zeitgeist is still out there, although it's dissipating due to people such as Sarah Palin boldly clashing with the wimps and cry-babies of the left. A seminal moment that underlined the wimp factor in America was the debate in the New York Senate race between the out-of-town carpetbagger, Hillary Clinton, and homegrown boy, Rick Lazio. This is where the people of New York State showed themselves to be the wimps that they are despite all the tough-guy talk of "If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere." Hillary, the left, and the press had a case of the vapors when Lazio walked over during the debate and "invaded her personal space."

From this and many other signs, men have gotten the unambiguous message that to act forthrightly, boldly, and even aggressively (unless you are on the left...there's that double standard again), you're being a sexist bully. And I think millions of men have been brought up this way. I mean, look around. The traits (including the very way they talk) of young men in particular is often very feminine-like.

This is where leadership comes in. This is where one must refute the simplistic and idiotic assumptions of the left. One of these is the idea that a man can't be bold *and* be a gentlemen. Of course he can. Strength (of both muscle and of character) can be an asset. And as we see with Neville Chamberlain and countless others on the left, there is nothing inherently good about being a spineless (though soft-spoken and polite) wimp.

But because none of this will change overnight, this is why conservative women are so powerful, so vitally needed, and making such a huge impact. They can fly under the radar of our wussified double-standard rules. But at some point we just have to ignore this nonsense, ignore the marketers, ignore the conventional wisdom, ignore the double-standards, and simply espouse conservative principles whatever we look like and however we do it. You can't, after all, rebut this growing wussified nanny-state ethos by being a limp noodle.

Beck's been talking about the "Progressive" food laws being implemented or proposed. There's an article at his "The Blaze" website detailing some of this.

The article notes, for instance, that a Brooklyn Democrat introduced a bill in the state legislature to ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking. And apparently Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill in July to ban trans fats from the state's 88,000 restaurants.

In Oregon, the health officials shut down a 7-year-old's roadside lemonade stand because she didn't have a restaurant license.

This is where we need to look the Trifeds, the Markles, and any other knee-jerk apologists for the left and ask "And you think Rove is the devil?"

As some point we need to understand that we've been had — or else some of you really do believe in this intrusive and kooky stuff.

All of this is fascism, or what Jonah Goldberg calls "Liberal Fascism." It's not a masculine fascism that comes in the form of firing squads and gulags, but the female form of fascism as we are nanny-stated to death.

Either one is on the side of this kind of liberal fascism (and thus are an enemy of freedom and an apologist for flakey zealous tyrants) or they are against this kind of stuff. Which is it? Which side are all of you on? Do you oppose these tyrannical, Puritanical laws or do you support, say, throwing a kid in detention for possessing a Jolly Rancher in school? Which will it be?

Someone once said "Give me liberty, or give me death." Can't we modern panty-wastes at least get up the gumption to say "Give me my god damn Jolly Rancher and stuff you're stupid nanny-state rules"?

A must-read from VDH: A Nation of Peasants?

America in Decline, Sowell Says
an interview with Investor's Business Daily

quote:

IBD: What are the markers of national decline? What characteristics are different from a few decades ago that if they don't improve will lead to this country falling apart?

Sowell: One of the most serious current signs is the governing style of this administration, which is to impose as many things as possible on the public from the top down, without even letting them know what's going on.

Huge bills that fundamentally change the way the economy op erates have been rushed through Congress without hearings, without debate, and so fast that not even the members of Congress have a chance to read them. That's circumventing the notion of a constitutional government, and that's really at the heart of what the country is. The only analogy I can think of from history is when the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French for an English-speaking nation. The utter arrogance — you're not even to know what the laws are until it is too late.

Reckless spending is another. The deficit and the national debt, as a percentage of GNP, is higher now than it was during any time except World War II. Moreover, once World War II was over we stopped the spending and started paying off the existing debt. We're going in exactly the opposite direction.

Of course, the one that trumps them all is on the international scene. That's where Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons. I'm just staggered at how little attention is being paid to that compared to frivolous things. If a nation with a record of sponsoring international terrorism gets nuclear weapons, that changes everything and it changes it forever.

Someday historians may wonder what were we thinking about when you look at the imbalance of power between the U.S. and Iran, and we sat there with folded hands and watched this happen, going through just enough motions at the United Nations to lull the public to sleep. That, I think, is the biggest threat.

quote:

IBD: What has Obama done to hasten our decline?

Sowell: He has affronted our allies, but he's very clever about it. He's done it in ways that the general public is unlikely to notice. But it is in ways that people in other countries cannot mistake at all, such as the downgrading of the visits of the prime minister of Britain or Israel. At one time the visit of the prime minister of Great Britain meant a state dinner, a press conference and so on.

His first foreign policy gambit was to fly to Russia and offer to renege on the American commitment to put a missile shield in Eastern Europe, in hopes of getting Russian cooperation with the United States. All he really got out of that was a demonstration of his amateurishness and of his willingness to sell out allies in hopes of winning over enemies. That ploy was tried in the 1930s and didn't work all that well.

IBD: One big trend leading to America's decline that came through in the book was how politicians and activists use rhetoric.

Sowell: It's partly that, but it is also the education system has not taught people how to see through rhetoric. Somewhere Oliver Wendell Holmes says that the purpose of education is to create a mind that cannot be humbugged by words. Well, that is not the purpose of American education now. Much of the humbugging by words takes place inside the educational institutions themselves. Students are not generally taught to see both sides of an issue and learn how to analyze in such ways to see what the differences are and how you would sort it all out. Instead they're given one side and they're told that one side is it.

Schools all around the country have shown Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." But I doubt that one-tenth of students have seen the British Channel 4 production called "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

IBD: So if children are taught only one side as unquestioned truth, what's the value of experience and wisdom?

Sowell: At one time students were taught, "You're young, you're inexperienced, you have a lot to learn. It's not up to you to make sweeping conclusions about society." Today that is not the message. Today when I see young kids, sometimes elementary students, carrying banners for some crusade, someone ought to tell them that you don't even know anything. Or you hear they are writing letters to the president on nuclear policy and so on. Within the past week, I got a letter from a high school senior who was about to inform me about economics in general and about the reason why there was a Great Depression and why it is necessary that Obama does the things he does. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. But students are encouraged to think that way.

IBD: You note in your book that Americans take a lot of good things in this country for granted. How does that hasten our decline?

Sowell: You have to have a sense that freedom is always under siege, and not just by people who don't believe in freedom but by people who have their own agendas and either don't know or don't care that those agendas mean reducing other people's freedom. So if you don't have a sense of the danger from those sources, you're going to face a steady erosion of freedom, because people put their own agendas ahead of other people's freedom.

quote:

IBD: How does the housing crisis embody some of the trends in the book?

Sowell: Everything that was done wrong in the past has been continued and escalated in the present. The recent so-called financial reform act left out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. Fannie and Freddie are two institutions that are in the production and distribution of moral hazard.

Nothing will increase risk more than by shifting it to somebody else. If I thought the government would back me up, I'd go into the commodities market and put a million dollars into soybean futures. Knowing that the government is not going to back me up, I won't go within 100 miles of the commodities market.

Politicians know that politically it pays to have the taxpayers pick up the bill (as with Fannie and Freddie). People ask me sometimes, "Why do politicians keep making the same mistakes? Don't they ever learn?" And I reply, "They do learn! They learn they can get away with it. That's what they learn."

quote:

IBD: In your book you have two columns titled "Empathy Versus the Law," and you discuss the rule of law vs. the rule of lawyers and judges. Explain how that is leading to our decline.

Sowell: Empathy is one of the weasel words of our time. It is a prettier word than bias, but it means the same thing. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor with those firefighters in Connecticut gave a free demonstration what empathy and bias mean. And yet not only was she confirmed; there were Republicans who announced going in that they were going to confirm her.
One of the things that happens is that people have no sense of what the law is supposed to be. It's not a matter of righting wrongs.

In the days of the French Revolution, "representatives on missions" were sent around the country to right wrongs. They had the power to overrule any laws or local officials. They carried their own guillotines with them. That notion of law, that's the direction those who are pushing judicial activism are going.

I thought that part I bolded was such an important point by Sowell.

Sowell is a true God.

I like your Republican Logo too, but notice how it makes you look like a shrieking Hussein-caller, and how that fits with the hot red color. It sort of makes the Democrats look calm and somber by comparison, which is totally a reversal of reality. It's really they that are the shrill ones. Despite the classy logo.

The GOP elephant logo is goofy and dated.

This is funny: New Republican Party Logo Leaked!

Thank heavens the American contingent walked out of the UN general assembly when Ahmedinejad started spouting his unbelievable bullshit. Obama should have jumped right down his neck, though, and didn't. His performance was abysmal. I honestly have lost all confidence in him. He really needs to be fired so bad. 2012 cannot come soon enough.

Love that new Republican Party logo.

We were talking about Big Government on Facebook and here's my take:

Phil, I think "mission creep" is a good way to characterize it. And it's going to be a tough road to creep back. But it's necessary that we do so.

I remember reading (perhaps in one of Tom Peters' books) of the problems 3M was having several years ago. Like a lot of businesses today, they were rotting away due to mission creep. 3M had bought a number of businesses that had little or nothing to do with their main area of expertise which was coatings and adhesive products.

This mission creep was causing them all kinds of problems including, of course, a loss of profits. They eventually dumped these subsidiaries and got back to their main business and all was well (although I don't know specifically how they are doing today).

But the same thing regards our government, Federal, state, and local. We need to jettison whole agencies and departments. Government has creeped vastly beyond its core functions. But this will be a very tough sell to many because government, for all intents and purposes, has creeped into the area of God. Government is now often seen as the provider of earthly redemption in that it is the instrument automatically and unthinkingly used to try to cure each and every problem. It is also the instrument of the implementation of a version of heaven-on-earth where all is to be made perfectly fair and equal. Government is the would-be provider of that leveler of all levelers: "social justice."

Today, we're not asking government to clear our way of obstacles so that we can live a life of freedom, unhindered by aristocracies, bureaucracies, and even theocracies. Instead, government is morphing (via the back door) into a theocracy of sorts. It is trying to be a St. Francis through the coercive methods of government.

Government can only ever act coercively. That's not all bad, but that is the power we reserve to government. And this coercion is inherently at odds with government being any kind of St. Francis, with it being "compassionate" and "caring." But whether it is because people have ditched religion, or because they have imbibed too much Karl Marx, they are looking to government as a benevolent provider.

If there is suffering anywhere, it is government (like an all-knowing, all-powerful god) who many expect to swoop in and fix things. And to do otherwise, from their point of view, is immoral. And if government really did have the power to fix all that ails us, I would admit that it would indeed be immoral to do nothing. But, of course, government not only can't fix everything, it regularly makes things worse. This aspect typically is ignored by the do-gooders. And imagine how ghastly it is to this mindset the idea of actually cutting back government.

That is the difficult task at hand. We need to not only cut government but cut our entirely over-inflated expectations of what government can supposedly do for us. By all means, believe in transcendent redemption and heaven, but to expect it here and now and to have it provided by an inherently coercive instrument such as government is to create a mess far worse than anything 3M ever dealt with. And I think we are seeing that mess right now.

quote:

We need to not only cut government but cut our entirely over-inflated expectations of what government can supposedly do for us.

Yes indeed. If every time people whined to government to "do something!" And that something was to immediately cut government somewhere, the results would always be positive.

More Facebook blather from me. But you might find it interesting:

Joy, if that's your audition for Conservative Comedy Central, you get the 9:00 pm slot. What a great parody commercial that would be.

We conservatives, of course, have no faults. But, seriously, conservatism, by its very nature, is not about being a busy-body. It's about leaving people alone so that they can go about their business of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Our faults tend to be the kind where friends (or wives) slap you in the face and set you straight. But we do not take these faults and project them upon a nation as a whole. Where necessary, we fix ourselves (or find new friends or wives). But we do not try to change the entire character of a nation just to fit our unique and narrow psychological profile.

Conservatives (libertarians, Objectivists, classical "Jeffersonian" liberals) are people who are full of the same foibles as everyone else. Maybe more so. But we don't wish to enshrine our faults into government policy. We wish for our faults to mix in that vast melting pot of individual faults called the Freedom of America and the free market. People themselves can decide which faults are just "those cute little things that make you who you are" and which faults are serious enough that you might want to build that fence in your back yard a little higher.

"Progressives," on the other hand, are a nightmare of intrusive, busy-body faults. They will just not leave us alone. Whether they are striving for utopia, for undue psychological comfort, for "The New Man," or just for power and prestige, "Progressivism" by its very nature is the faults of others that try to intrude onto us. "Progressivism" does not respect the individual, has far too much gullible respect for authority, and will regularly (and recklessly) trade freedom for supposed security. Collectivists by nature really do not love "diversity." What they love is group think. For whatever reason, they need others to look, act, and think as they do. This is inherently intrusive and leads to intrusive policies and government.

I count at least five pillars of "Progressivism." We talked about conceit (wanting to be one of The Beautiful People) and extended adolescence (which is almost always mixed with narcissism). There's also, as you well know, the element of plunder, of portraying oneself as a victim in order to get (in the words of Ayn Rand) what is unearned. Society always has that element, and only the "Progressives" have tried to ennoble and excuse this thievery.

There is also the element of power for power's sake. As Angelo Codevilla pointed out in his article, "America's Ruling Class," the left always is a patronage system. They always are about one-party rule, with the power of that party being increased through an ever more powerful state, with people being bought-and-paid-for by the government, and where (if you want to advance) you need to be a member of this ruling class. (And they do indeed rule, not govern.) The public is plundered for the benefit of this political class. (And, yes, far too often Republicans have been little more than "Progressivism Lite" in this regard. No one is denying that.)

The fifth element (a good movie with Bruce Willis, by the way) is one that elicits some sympathy from me. I'm reading David Horowitz's "Radical Son" right now and he touches on that fifth pillar of "Progressivism," or any kind of collectivism. People are drawn to these kinds of collectivist causes because they have a feeling of alienation and/or are looking for a robust and uplifting meaning for their lives (and probably too much so, which is why I often say that the left "has too much heaven on their minds").

Horowitz brings up the great point (especially concerning his two Communist parents) about why they needed to reject their *entire* society instead of just joining some local cause if what they wanted to do was to improve the lot of people. A question I ask as well is, If people are looking for meaning and a sense of belonging, why not join the Elks Club, the Lions Club, your local church, a poker club, or anything else? Why choose something as radical as the Communist Party (or "Progressivism," for that matter)? Why reject your entire society? Why kool-aid instead of baseball, hotdogs, or apple pie?

I don't have the answer to that. I don't know that anyone does. Why does one orient around anger, envy, and class warfare while deliberately undermining, debasing, and devaluing all that is good in a society? Why this wild, reckless, and gullible search for perfection and utopia? But that describes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi, for starters.

Horowitz typically has such great insights. It will be interesting to see if he comes up with an answer in the rest of his book, "Radical Son."