home  |  book  |  blogs  |   RSS  |  contact  |

A Return to Sanity

print view

Discredit Liberalism Utterly

by Christopher Chantrill
September 10, 2013 at 12:00 am

|

CONSERVATIVES have a Hamlet question this week. Whether to ’tis nobler in the mind to back President Obama as commander-in-chief, right or wrong. Or to take arm against a sea of troubles and defeat the president on his Syria war resolution.

Or, perchance to dream that, at this point, what difference does it make?

Either way, this nation desperately needs to discredit utterly the political faith of its liberal ruling class by November 2016. Because until that happens, America is stuck in an authoritarian administrative time warp of foreign policy irrevelance and domestic policy train wrecks.

Here’s how we would know that liberalism were utterly discredited. We would see cable comedians like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert make their bones by sneering at liberal numskulls instead of at conservative numskulls as they do now, because that’s where the ratings would force them.

Conservatives used to think that liberals had already been discredited by the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s. We were wrong, and here’s why.

There’s a theory about war that any real war takes 30 years to sort out. That’s because the loser typically needs to sacrifice two generations of young men on the battlefield before it gets the message. See Germany 1618-48; France, 1789-1815; Germany, 1914-45.

Stephen Moore’s recent piece reporting that youth and women and minorities are hardest hit by Obamanomics tells us that liberal governance is in the middle of wiping out the second generation of Democratic faithful in 40 years. The first wipeout, remember, was the stagflation of the 1970s that Reagan cured in the 1980s.

Back in the late 1970s liberals were saying that the nation was ungovernable. How else to account for the stagflation? Liberal President Carter knew what needed to be done, but he just didn’t have the power to overrule Congress. Now we have Sam Tanenhaus mourning that Obama is stuck with a “Hands-tied Presidency.” Nobody’s fault, of course. Just the reality of politics in America.

President Reagan advocated and passed an economic policy that reversed Keynesian inflationism with hard money; continued the deregulation that had started under Carter; and cut tax rates. “Supply-side economics” was the catchphrase, but there was solid science behind it.

Liberals sneered that supply-side was “trickle-down” economics, that Reagan was an amiable dunce, that Reaganomics would never work. The liberals of the era believed that the developed countries had exhausted the potential for economic growth. It was an era of Limits to Growth, as advocated by the Club of Rome, the IPCC of the time. Nobody’s fault, of course.

Liberals were wrong in the 1970s and conservatives were right in the 1980s. It was a slam dunk and liberals were silenced for a season. When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992 and Democrats were desperate for the spoils of office after losing three presidential elections in a row, he ran as a New Democrat. Unsaid, but understood, was that Democrats had learned the lessons of the 1980s.

Even in 1992 there was a clue that liberals hadn’t learned their lesson. The catchphrase of the day was “policy wonk” and Clinton was celebrated as a man that liked nothing better than to go to the annual Renaissance Weekend and gabble about policy with his fellow up-and-coming wonks. But really, Renaissance Weekends were just bull sessions to plan how to increase the power and the reach of big government and the authoritarian administrative state. Today Paul Krugman is sneering about a Republican “wonk gap.”

In fact, liberals hadn’t learned their lesson; they were lying. But what do you expect? You don’t get to win a war with one battle.

Still, after the 1994 election, Clinton and Co. decided that they’d better lay low on their real liberal agenda for the rest of the 1990s.

With Obama and Co., we are talking about the second generation that has been mobilized, trained and sent to the front to battle for the modern ruling class and its essentially fascist vision of “everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state.” That is why it is so important to defeat them and humiliate them, and get their hardest-hit followers -- the young, the women and the minorities -- to desert from the liberal colors or even switch sides.

Because the way to win a war, a real 30 year slugfest, is to defeat the second generation sent to the trenches.

The way things are going, it looks like conservatives won’t have to do much to make this happen, because the liberal generals are still fighting the last war with their discredited Keynesianism and big government meltdowns. And they are getting the same disastrous results as they did a generation ago.

Discredit them utterly, that’s what it takes.

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.

Buy his Road to the Middle Class.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.

 

 TAGS


What Liberals Think About Conservatives

[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. “Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists,” she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican


US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism


Taking Responsibility

[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050


Society and State

For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008


Socialism equals Animism

Imagining that all order is the result of design, socialists conclude that order must be improvable by better design of some superior mind.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit


Sacrifice

[Every] sacrifice is an act of impurity that pays for a prior act of greater impurity... without its participants having to suffer the full consequences incurred by its predecessor. The punishment is commuted in a process that strangely combines and finesses the deep contradiction between justice and mercy.
Frederick Turner, Beauty: The Value of Values


Responsible Self

[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.


Religion, Property, and Family

But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family. Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit


Racial Discrimination

[T]he way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Roberts, C.J., Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District


Postmodernism

A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ’merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy


Physics, Religion, and Psychology

Paul Dirac: “When I was talking with Lemaître about [the expanding universe] and feeling stimulated by the grandeur of the picture that he has given us, I told him that I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion. However [Georges] Lemaître [Catholic priest, physicist, and inventor of the Big Bang Theory] did not agree with me. After thinking it over he suggested psychology as lying closest to religion.”
John Farrell, “The Creation Myth”


Pentecostalism

Within Pentecostalism the injurious hierarchies of the wider world are abrogated and replaced by a single hierarchy of faith, grace, and the empowerments of the spirit... where groups gather on rafts to take them through the turbulence of the great journey from extensive rural networks to the mega-city and the nuclear family...
David Martin, On Secularization


presented by Christopher Chantrill

Data Sources  •   •  Contact