Saturday, November 30, 2019

The Left Has Money To Burn

Friends, Democrats have to be taken seriously in 2020 and beyond.  Not only do they enjoy the immense advantage of billions of dollars' worth of free, positive media attention, thanks to the MSM -- they have also mobilized a robust network of wealthy liberals to fund their campaigns and movements.  We all know that leftists are supposedly offended by "dark money," and they claim to hate the fact that billionaires and plutocrats can "buy" elections, but the truth is that they are enthusiastic practitioners of both of these electoral strategies.  The Left outspent us in 2016.  It massively outspent us in 2018.  It may well do so again in 2020.  And we're not even talking about the hundreds of millions spent by Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg to influence our elections.  That's on top of the Super PACs, the campaign committees, etc etc.  Republicans need to mobilize as never before in 2020, if we're to remain competitive.  Among other things, we need to convince wealthy conservatives and moderates that socialism represents an existential threat to their way of life, as it surely does!  Only by bringing them on board can we hold the Left at bay.


  1. Dr. Waddy: As you highlighted in a recent illustration "any means necessary" is the left's byword. It has been and ever shall be thus. My, my, such RESOLUTION from those for whom the most humane standard of living ever has been their heritage. Well, I can imagine how very unendurable this imperfect world is when viewed from, but mostly in, a smoky dorm room. Heavens!

    But how can the real America persuade those well to do Americans who make common cause with those who would gladly consign them to the tumbrels, that they make light with mortal folly?

    Consider their motivations: either - they believe that the 20th century proven murderous left will never triumph in America and that it is great fun to slum with them OR they hope to be spared the holocaust because of their present support OR, being children of the post'60's American academy, they actually think the 20th century discredited far left to be yet just and being airily ignorant and inexperienced of the mass hangings, the mass starvations, the ruin of hundreds of millions of lives, they think a modern left which surely would not be as carnally crude, even if it were, shall we say, confiscatory, could be lived with. How can we dissuade them?

    Perhaps, sans a very close call like Britain had in the '70's, we cannot and we must overpower them or separate from them.

  2. Great questions, Jack. I would guess the odd fascination that many wealthy people have for the hard left is a product of mis-education in elite institutions, plus a very rational understanding that, in many cases, big government makes the rich richer. That last gem, though, is true only as long as it serves the interests of the Left itself. I fear many of our country's millionaires and billionaires are on liberalism's proverbial chopping block (rather like whites, men, and Christians), but don't know it yet.

  3. Dr. Waddy: I think we may again refer to the place where the far left has made its most significant step toward possible eventual omnipotence - NY State, for an answer to your question.

    Dear Leader Cuomo, perhaps the most powerful leftist in the U.S., has made it very clear that any NY taxpayer who opposes him is patently unwelcome and can expect an accelerating degree of the already commenced reduction of such recalcitrants to second class and ultimately non, citizenship.He has achieved legislative dominance, has taken consequent action directly opposite to the values of gun owners, those who are not convinced that global warming is man made and those who affirm the definition of marriage (rather than something which is not marriage). He has openly expressed his disdain for those who disagree with him and has strongly implied that he believes they do not belong in his state.This, while making New York an evermore forgiving and enabling place for criminals. It is reasonable to think that, had he the power, he would take very affirmative action to cleanse NY of the ever increasing list of the politically incorrect. Luckily that pesky Constitution prevents him from bustling without restraint but NY remains a model and a warning, to the rest of the country of the certainties of leftist rule. Are whites, men Christians and other proven apostates meant for political suppression? We should assume it now, when we have the political power to stop it. That means recognizing the threat and mustering the will to defeat it.

  4. Jack, all that is true, and how! But I can see left-leaning millionaires and billionaires scratching their heads and saying "So what? Those NRA scum deserve to be banished from NYS. I, however, am virtue personified. Surely, the Left would never come for ME???" Thus far they'd be right, too. NYS has taken care of plenty of well-connected rich folks. They undoubtedly assume that, as long as they tow the Democratic, PC line, they'll prosper. If they grease Cuomo's palm, they'll prosper even more! I think the sad truth is that the sort of ideological persecution you cite would actually be seen in a positive light by many rich people! Sad, but true.

  5. Dr. Waddy: That makes sense. It could be that the leftist past is not proof positive of how it will be if they take over. Lives can be destroyed far short of execution.

    One could argue that communism took over only countries which were already in extremis or was forced from outside on countries which would otherwise not have embraced it . But Cambodia, though strongly affected by the Vietnam War, was a stable and relatively content country until it was engulfed by its own in the most ghoulish regime ever. Even the North Vietnamese totalitarians were appalled by it. Great Britain almost succumbed to its far left in the '70's until PM Thatcher courageously redeemed it.Chile almost got it from within before their military saved them from something far worse than what they ended up with. I think it CAN happen in the U.S. or perhaps part of the present day U.S. And if it does, the well to do will go down the drain with the rest of us. I don't know enough about the Russian revolution to know if the Bolsheviks used the well to do in gaining complete power. I'll bet they did and those people suffered right along with everyone else from that incalculably tragic experiment which was forced on all of Russia.

  6. Jack, you raise a very valid point (as is your wont): how can anyone look at the record of socialism and communism "in action" and defend such a flawed, inhuman system? The answer is, I suppose, that history can be bent to almost any purpose, and if one takes, oh, Sweden to Denmark as the complete spectrum of "socialism," and conveniently omits the less savory manifestations, then it starts to look pretty survivable! Remember, the Left would throw a version of the same question back at us: how can anyone look at Auschwitz and endorse nationalism in any form? And, if nationalism had existed only in Europe and only between the years 1940 and 1945, they might even have a point.

  7. Dr. Waddy: Very good points: my reply to a leftist retort like that would be this: the kind of murderous nationalism which gave birth to Auschwitz died in 1945. But totalitarian socialism remains a real possibility and its adherents hold power in many settings in the U.S. (eg. a possibly Marxist exPresident and a "coPresident, the American academy, the Federal bureaucracy and those of several of the states, big business . . .). Nazis have no comparable power in the U.S.

  8. Dr. Waddy: I forgot about the former Yugoslavia in my comments above; I'd still maintain that true Nazis are powerless pariahs.

    Possibly the most eloquent and justified historical judge of communism, Solzhenitsyn, said"real existing socialism was a barbaric fraud, a totalitarian dictatorship resting upon a foundation of slave labor and mass murder". He lived long enough to have been aware of postwar Western European "democratic socialism" and while I am not aware of his having expressed an opinion on it, he might have considered it a creature very much different from what he knew of "socialism". Perhaps we ought to consider it undeserving of the appellation "socialism" altogether.

    I would put the potential of increasingly unabashed and frank,American socialism, of the kind expressed by such as Bernie and those inspired by or attempting to hitch onto his wagon (as "Bobby" did with Eugene McCarthy in '68)to be of the destructive nature described by Solzhenitsyn. Oh, they probably would not engage in mass murder once they had the power but in an advanced society one need not murder to ruin lives.

  9. Jack, I think you've put your finger on the central issue: is there any essential kinship between modern American "socialism" and classic Soviet totalitarian communism? The potential answers are legion, but the most credible probably involve some version of "maybe". The modern Left evinces plenty of intolerance, but it hasn't yet had an opportunity to be murderous. Stay tuned. My view is that the debate is somewhat academic, because ALL ideologies have the potential to degenerate into dictatorship and assorted beastliness. That's largely a question of personnel, not ideals. And if we look at the human material that comprises the modern Left, I'm not sure we're greatly comforted.

  10. Dr. Waddy: Two observations from the wonderful book Postwar; a history of Europe since 1945 by Tony Judt (Judt may have been quoting others; I neglected to note that):"What begins with centralized planning ends with centralized killing." and "By its very nature, modern tyranny requires the collaboration of intellectuals". People like Bernie and Hillary, who would blithely consign the gargantuan health care industry to government ownership, just for starters, are very apparent advocates of very centralized planning. Are they potential mass destroyers of people's lives? Its fascinating to think of that nice librarian Mr. Mao or that struggling student Pol Pot or that grubby artist Herr Hitler when they were yet members of the human race.

    That a very significant portion of American intelligentsia has surrendered to "political correctness" is obvious from the shameful state of the American academy now.

    Perhaps all ideologies have the potential to degenerate but none has demonstrated it as conclusively as the left.

  11. Jack, I think one of the central questions will always be: how much are we willing to subordinate our humanity to our ideology? If people don't matter -- only THE IDEA or THE MOVEMENT matters -- well, anything goes... I personally don't think people are any more beastly than they've ever been, but the capacity of the state and of mass movements to oppress and kill is much greater than ever. Thus we need to be very cautious in who we choose to entrust with the awesome power of the modern state. One wrong move could doom us all.

    And I certainly concur that centralization is ultimately inhuman and tyrannical. The sad part is that even the right these days seems to buy into it. As you say, the corruption of the intelligensia and the cultural elite explains much of it. They are infatuated with centralized state power. We need to end that love affair somehow. We have yet to figure out how.

  12. Dr. Waddy: The 20th century provides ample evidence that it is possible to subordinate humanity to ideology. I've always wondered: how did the Nazis or the Commies find enough of the everyday cadre necessary to maintain their hellholes? But we know they did!

    Are all civilizations capable of such evil? American and British history provide shameful examples of our murderousness at a time I am confident, we have outlived, through painful and honest introspection. But we rejected these practices by the time 20th century technological advance had enabled gas murder and aerial assault. Yes, we employed nuclear weapons to end a conflict with a leadership (only) bent on suicide but we never again used it. Would Stalin have displayed similar restraint? Fat chance!

    I would commend to you an article in the Nov. 2019 issue of the journal Commentary:"Against the Anti-Market Consensus"in which the author supports your observation that both the left and some of the right appear now to support centralized planning.

    Your observation that we must be VERY cautious in employing the power of the state is lent thereby, evermore credibility and urgency.

  13. Thanks for the recommendation, Jack. I read the article. The defense of market forces was very compelling. I was less convinced by the attack on "the right," i.e. Tucker Carlson, as anti-capitalist. That claim was poorly supported. He's right, though, that free markets and strong borders don't necessarily go together, and there are some hard choices to be made between economic imperatives and cultural ones. He also might have pointed out that right-wing politicians seem almost as enamored of government spending as left-wingers. That's worrying to me. The growing cultural consensus against capitalism among the young is also troubling. I blame the media, in part. Who wouldn't believe that we live in the worst of all possible worlds, if they watched CNN or MSNBC?

  14. Dr. Waddy: How perverse it is! Don't they recognize how things were 100 years ago and how much better they are now? Are their minds utterly closed? They may well be and it may be futile to ask of them any understanding of how very far humanity has progressed.

    It is completely to be expected that the leftist dominated MSM is resolved to advance an image of societal disintegration due to adherence to traditional verities.We have, long since, fully realized this but what about the real America?

    We know what the real America's values are. It remains for us who are most active to convince it that it is under fundamental attack and that decisive defeat of the attack is AT HAND if they will but mobilize and assert their beliefs(most importantly, in the voting booth).

  15. Amen, Jack!

    It never ceases to amaze me how little facts impinge on the worldview of the Left. Mythology trumps rationality every time, for that lot. But maybe it's a human foible, not a leftist one: perception is so frequently unmoored from reality.

    In our own time, the name of the game is victimology. We train people to think of themselves as victims, and they manage it under even the most unlikely of circumstances. I guarantee you that Bloomberg, pockets overflowing with wads of cash, thinks of himself as a "victim" of Trumpism. What a joke!

  16. Dr. Waddy: Makes sense. Makes sense!