Friends, your reactionary hero, Dr. Waddy, has been in Florida for the past week, so this blog has been quieter than usual. Let's put an end to that right now!
I recommend two articles to you today. The first is by Dan Gainor, and it aptly summarizes some of the most recent incidences of leftist lunacy and media bias. Note that the inflammatory rhetoric about the dictatorial aspirations of President Trump supports one of the other themes we are seeing in liberal discourse these days: the idea that extreme rudeness, even violence, may be justified in combating "hate," i.e. conservatism. The remark by Governor Cuomo that America "was never that great" is also to be expected, given that leftists tend to assume that any country that produces Donald J. Trump, and gives him executive authority over hundreds of millions, is beyond salvation...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/19/dan-gainor-summertime-and-media-are-embarrassing-from-hating-america-to-loving-antifa.html
The next article is about Michael Avenatti's potential White House bid in 2020. Now, stop to ponder this: the press could not be more contemptuous of the man who was duly elected President of the United States, but they take seriously the words and moral claims made by a lawyer who represents a money-grubbing porn star. (Don't think for a moment that I deprecate the integrity of ALL porn stars, but Stormy Daniels? Please!) Truly, we are living in a time when all bets are off...when anyone, ANYONE who feeds the beast that is the anti-Trump media will be welcomed with open arms, no questions asked. Omarosa is the incontestable proof of that!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/19/avenatti-mulling-wh-run-tells-anti-trump-dems-in-new-hampshire-to-fight-fire-with-fire.html
Dr. Waddy: I was denied access to both articles. Avenatti? For real? Sancta absurdum maximus.
ReplyDeleteI fully expect the left to be totally unhinged after the midterms: if they win they will celebrate their deliverance from a temporary Gehenna, their redemption, the beginning of the inevitable righting of the frightful wrong of 2016, the restoration of the historically inevitable totalitarian march to the pinnacle, their due and victory over detestable political incorrectness. And when they are of that mind they always overreach. If they lose, judging on their post 11/8/16 insanity and self righteous amorality, they will go right off the deep end. They are of little ability to withstand rebuffs, convinced as they are that such reverses are attacks on their unquestionable justice. We stand to benefit in 2020 from either result I think.
Avenatti I can't see it(after all, can anyone name Paula Jones' or Juanita Broadrick's attorneys?) but its Bloomberg who causes me concern. He has the means to make a plausible run and if he were to name,say, Warren,as his running mate early on, he could be dangerous.
Interesting analysis, Jack. You're right about the Left's penchant for overreach. We can always count on them to steer into an iceberg... They seem to be going more and more bonkers every day, so I can't even imagine what they would do if their blue wave passes them by. I honestly think their capacity for violence is only beginning to show itself, and that scares me.
ReplyDeleteBloomberg doesn't scare me, however. He's an unlikable little fellow. Frankly, I wish he WOULD run, because I believe he'd take votes mainly from the Democrat. I also think a three-way race favors an incumbent with a loyal base. There's also someone like Kasich. I wouldn't rule him out. He might be a little more dangerous, because he could attract conservative support. I don't think either one of them would break single digits, but that's enough to make a difference.
Dr. Waddy: Your opinion of Bloomberg encourages me. I was assuming he would seek the Dem nomination and that they might seem him as another Trump in his electability ( and in office he would give them all they want - he was an essential RINO). BUT, I forgot about his strident anti 2nd amendment stance. Sure, any Dem would do that way but they might be coy about it in the election. Anyway, I think you are right about him.
ReplyDeleteI also think a descent into violence by the rump left (such, should it be marginalized) is a definite possibility.
I am learning alot from the reading I'm doing on the history of Marxism. I misunderstood much. I had little knowledge of Marx's own evil(though I did know about his anti-semitism and that doctrine infuriates me). I'm trying to be better informed about the genesis of the present day left and as I learn, I'll incorporate what I find into my comments. I still consider the left the fundamental threat to American freedom and prosperity.
Jack, I'm most intrigued to hear what you learn about Marxism and the Left from your readings. What you learn about Marx himself is also of interest to me. Please share, and if you ever want to contribute an article to my blog, the door is always open...
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong about Bloomberg, of course, but I very much doubt that the Dems would ever nominate him, or that he would seek their nomination. An independent run -- possibly. I honestly don't think he'd fare well outside of the Big Apple. I'm also not so sure that there's a huge market for "centrism". The country is pretty well divided into left and right, and both sides seem to scorn anyone who doesn't check all the right boxes. Even Trump had to reinvent himself as a conservative to get ahead...
Dr. Waddy: Thank you for that kind offer; I'll keep that in mind after I've spent more time with Robert Service's Comrades!A History of World Communism. Service is Professor of Russian History at Oxford and I'd strongly recommend the book. One gem I've found already is his observation that early Russian Communists got used to forming prospective policy in a power vacuum (vigorously suppressed and scorning as they did office holding under the Czar, even in the Duma and gaining very little when they did try for it) and saw accreditation simply in a concept having survived the (no doubt) tortuous crucible of their internal debates. Surely their disdain for bourgeoisie verities exacerbated this and in practice it was proven catastrophic;they had never tempered their idealism with sobering experience and unlucky Russia had to endure their education in a hard, hard school indeed. The present American left, despite extensive empowerment, has yet inherited this reflexive and convenient presumption and manifests it in its ferocious disdain for conservatism. They base their principles in their empirically unsupportable expectations for the future rather than in consideration of what the past has proven. Its intellectually dishonest and productive of appalling evil in practice.
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree, Jack, but surely you would concede that the past is a complex laboratory, and interpreting its lessons is not easy and involves a lot of subjectivity. The question of individualism versus communalism, for instance, is a thorny one, and no society comes down on it unambiguously on one side or the other. I admit it's not hard to prove that Stalinism was horrendous, but the broader concept of communal ownership and rough equality has been tested in many different conditions, to many different degrees, with a wide variety of results, no?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Yes. Israel provides a prime example of a society which has employed communalism and a necessarily attendant egalitarianisn to a very positive effect. But the indispensable doctrinal and spiritual basis for the devotion confirmed by these seminal efforts, in a most desolate and dangerous setting, is the millenially confirmed faith of Judaiism. Their confirmation lies in their profoundly democratic humane and prosperously advanced state, situated in a sea of barbarism and Marxism can present nothing to compare with it.
ReplyDeleteI fully concede that history is an exceedingly complex laboratory: I recall some commentators saying it should be considered an art, better set in the humanities, rather than as a social science. But I do think that history has confirmed that the modern imposition of communal institutions on entire societies (who, despite their experience of some communal life, which rural Russia had experienced)has been the source of unimaginable wrong.
Well said, Jack. I definitely agree that history belongs in the humanities (even though I teach in a "Social and Behavioral Sciences" department). I think the key here is your use of the word "imposition". Human beings are naturally communal and social to a very large degree. One doesn't have to compel cooperative living, even though some degree of compulsion is needed to make everyone follow the rules. The point is that, the more force is needed to obtain compliance, the less "natural" and proper your social system is likely to be. Stalinism and Maoism required gargantuan amounts of force, including mass incarceration and mass killing, to make them minimally viable. There's your historical verdict on radical communism, if you ask me...
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, my impression is that the extreme communalism (think: shared parenting) practiced on some kibbutzim proved disastrous, and Israel has largely backed off a lot of the utopian socialism that infused it at its founding.
Dr. Waddy: I'll have to learn more about Israel; shared parenting - that doesn't get it. As far as imposition; I was thinking of those measures (eg. complete collectivization, forced forfeit of winter supplies leading to mass starvation) which were in themselves unendurable even to people inclined to find satisfaction in communal institutions. Force was seen to be required to meet their objections and consequent lack of cooperation. Worse, preventative mayhem was initiated in order to head off anticipated resistance (eg. Lenin to Stalin: Hang 5000 peasants at your convenience in the ---- District to prepare them for the dictatorship of the proletariat and teach them the fruits of even contemplated counter revolution).
ReplyDeleteI think your historical verdict on radical communism is well founded. Its unprecedented inhumanity condemns it. It would be virtually impossible in the 20th and 21 century to find justification for it even had it resulted in prosperity and well being. That consideration, which I am appalled even to broach, must be asked when it comes to China. Was its monstrous communist nightmare a necessary prerequisite to its present positive state? My son has a one word answer to that - Taiwan.
I would tend to agree with your son, Jack. Communism isn't a necessary step on the road to anywhere. I suspect China would be in much better shape if the Maoists had been defeated in 1949 instead of victorious. Be that as it may, I think the best verdict that could be rendered on "communism" would probably be based on the Soviet Union's victory in WWII and its immense progress economically, technologically, and otherwise in the next three decades. That was certainly communism with something like a human face.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I would disagree with my beloved son and yourself in that Taiwan was too limited a setting for comparison with gigundus mainland China. Too, it had a distinctly Taiwanese culture which was savagely attacked both by the Japanese and by Han Chinese in their invasions of the island. So, I think the onerous question I posed may still merit further investigation ,though God forbid that it find support. But, there is much objective truth in your comments. It cannot be denied that Stalin industrialized Russia and that that was a major factor in their defeat of the Nazi monster. Though we and the Brits took great pains to resupply the Russians, their rugged T34 Tank, which stood up well to whatever the tank expert Boche sent at it, was a purely domestic product and it had a decisive effect. And though it was not to the benefit of the populace, one cannot but admire their courageous achievements in space exploration and even the labors of some of those who truly believed communism to be a good thing. Certainly those who were so terribly misled but who displayed such laudable resolution manifested very human faces indeed.
ReplyDeleteBeautifully put, Jack. Personally, I would credit a lot of those accomplishments to the stoic and incredibly resilient Russian people...but it's true that their overlords were commies, so a sliver of credit must go to them too. Personally, I've always believed that "command economies" are good at certain things -- like very focused, sustained efforts, e.g. a war or a space program -- but ultimately bad at what counts: making life the best it can be for ordinary folks.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Extensively command economies such as that of the U.S. and probably Britain during WWII, did work to the benefit of democracy. But they were enacted as measures assuredly temporary both in the convictions of their chief executives and in the realities of their polities. True, the Brits remarkably empowered Labor in 1945 but they invited Winston back in (I think) 1951. Truman did take on organized labor but the U.S. certainly quickly returned to a freedom and free enterprise generated prosperity which blessed our 1950's childhoods. Had Henry Wallace become President he might have attempted a leftist continuation of war time controls and might have been the object of the first American coup de etat.
ReplyDeleteJack, the words "President Henry Wallace" send chills down my spine. FDR was bad enough.
ReplyDeleteYou're right -- it's somewhat remarkable that the US government relinquished most of the control over the economy that it assumed during WWII. Modern history teaches us that governments grow with reckless abandon. Seldom, if ever, do they shrink. Obama was a case in point. Our "great recession" mandated a massive growth in government spending, as per Barack. And yet his allegedly magnificent "recovery" didn't necessitate a corresponding pullback in government spending. Perish the thought.
D. Waddy: I'm wondering now if Obama regrets his relatively cautious, Alinskyite approach to the eventual Marxist transformation of our erring country? He's a young man though and I'm sure he expects that his coruscating image will grace neighborhood billboards in the near future. He hopes they will see that he did what he could, yes?
ReplyDeleteHistory creditably purports to teach that those in power never voluntarily relinquish it. But Washington did so twice (after the war and after his second term) and George III (really a fairly good monarch)was amazed by it. Then the post war U.S. government backed off , to some extent at least. Those WWII proven and tempered generations guided us well until the baby boomers barged in.
Jack, I too wonder what Obama thinks about Trump's ascension. He HAS to see it as a failure on his part, to some degree. Surely, if Obama stood for anything, it was the creation of an America where no one like Trump could ever win a general election... Maybe, though, Obama and his ilk see Trump as the last gasp of white racism, soon to be cleansed completely at the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. That would be my guess.
ReplyDelete