Merv of PrairiePundit posts Mark Steyn's article about capitalism and change (thanks to Larwyn). He notes that whereas the presidential candidates say that they favor change:
"it's capitalism that's the real "agent of change. Politicians, on the whole, prefer stasis, at least on everything for which they already have responsibility. ts."
But the change thatReInflateoCrat politicians advocate is not make believe. Politicians do create change. Progressive-liberal or political change is reactionary and exploitative. The name "progressive-liberal" refers not to progress or liberalization for the public, rather progress and liberalization for its privileged beneficiaries: lawyers, big business, academics and hedge fund managers.
In aiming to "deconstruct" American values, progressive-liberals aim to supplant them with values that serve their ends. Progressive liberals aim not only to staunch general progress and technological advance, which threatens established economic interests, but to intensify income inequality; shore up inept businesses; protect inefficient health care; make the poor poorer; and make the rich richer. All of this is done in the name of making the economy more efficient; reducing income inequality; providing general health care; and helping the poor. Progressive-liberalism is a vicious philosophy.
Universities have played a critical role in reinforcing exploitative political change . In the 1970s Milovan Djilas argued that communism and left wing ideology served the interests of a new class of journalists and intellectuals.
In America, political use of intellectuals to advocate and support economic exploitation of the poor takes on a specific pattern. American academics argue for cultural change that reinforces their power. They attack religious institutions and traditional values, and argue for a pattern based on groupthink, the "liberal Borg", whereby the New York Times sets an agenda which progressive-liberal cult members mindlessly follow. The progressive-liberal groupthink mentality is a social control process that serves specific economic interests. The new class, academics and journalists, is paid for this pattern with academic jobs, funding and the like.
The effect of the academics' purposed cultural domination and hegemony is to distract the public from state violence and exploitation. The public is made poorer by inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank, while the media advises them that inflation is low. The dollar is artificially propped up and some jobs leave the country, and the media tells the public that free trade is to blame. There is massive waste in government, and the public is told that taxes are too low.
All the while, academia distracts from its exploitative purposes by raising crank political issues: terrorism is justice; defending America is imperialism; crime is justice; taxation creates wealth; free trade makes us poorer, and so on.
The Republicans have been too often part of this process. Republicans, such as Theodore Roosevelt, supported progressive-liberalism. This element never left the Republican Party. In those days, the Democrats were free traders and the Republicans supported exploitative tariffs. Support for hard money was a minority voice in both parties. It was not until 1896 that the Republicans became the hard money party.
It is primarily because of capture of academia that the progressive-liberals have been triumphant in the last century. Now that their ideas have been discredited, it is even more crucial to them to retain control of academia. Without the reinforcement of academic propaganda, it will be difficult for the progressive-liberals to appear to be anything other than what they are: the ideologists of corruption, narrow special interest and economic decline.
Conservatives need to state their case. The Republican Party is not necessarily a conservative or moderate conservative party. It has been a corrupt or progressive-liberal party for much of its history. Conservatives must ponder the way forward.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Milton Friedman and the Federal Reserve Bank
I will ask my business seminar course to read Milton Friedman's 1962 Capitalism and Freedom, which was re-published in a 2002 40th anniversary edition. I was just re-reading it and cannot praise it highly enough. On page 44 Friedman writes:
"It is instructive to compare experience as a whole before and after (the Fed's) establishment--say from just after the Civil War to 1914 and from 1914 to date,to take two periods of roughly equal length.
"The second period was clearly the more unstable economically, whether instability is measured by the fluctuations in the stock of money, in prices, or in outputs...(E)ven if the war and immediate postwar years are omitted, and we consider only the peacetime years from, say, 1920 through 1939 and 1947 to date, the result is the same. The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before...
"...the crude comparison should at least give the reader pause before he takes for granted, as is so often done, that an agency as long established, as powerful, as pervasive as the Federal Reserve System is performing a necessary and desirable fundtion and is contributing to the attainment of the objective for which it was established."
Things have recently become worse than they've been in a long time. Perhaps it is time to abolish the Fed. Since the Democrats are asking for change, and an elimination of the Fed's disruptive inflationary cycles would certainly constitute change, this is the year to do it.
"It is instructive to compare experience as a whole before and after (the Fed's) establishment--say from just after the Civil War to 1914 and from 1914 to date,to take two periods of roughly equal length.
"The second period was clearly the more unstable economically, whether instability is measured by the fluctuations in the stock of money, in prices, or in outputs...(E)ven if the war and immediate postwar years are omitted, and we consider only the peacetime years from, say, 1920 through 1939 and 1947 to date, the result is the same. The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before...
"...the crude comparison should at least give the reader pause before he takes for granted, as is so often done, that an agency as long established, as powerful, as pervasive as the Federal Reserve System is performing a necessary and desirable fundtion and is contributing to the attainment of the objective for which it was established."
Things have recently become worse than they've been in a long time. Perhaps it is time to abolish the Fed. Since the Democrats are asking for change, and an elimination of the Fed's disruptive inflationary cycles would certainly constitute change, this is the year to do it.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Origins of Progressive Liberalism
The modern progressive-liberal movement may be said to have its earliest origins in the presidential campaign of 1884 when the Independent Republicans or Mugwumps (named after the word for young Algonquin Indian chieftain) bolted the Republican Party to fight the candidacy of James G. Blaine (R-ME), whom they associated with corruption and feared would scotch the Pendleton Act that had recently established the federal civil service. Instead of Blaine, whom they hated, they supported Grover Cleveland (D-NY). Theodore Roosevelt was linked to the Independent Republicans as was Harvard University's president, Charles Eliot, the New York Times, the Nation, the New York Evening Post, and Harper's Weekly. John M. Dobson* writes of the Mugwumps, the progressive-liberals' precursors:
"In their energetic promotion of Cleveland and their unstinting criticism of Blaine, the Mugwump journalists sometimes exceeded the bounds of objectivity. If they avoided telling outright lies, they were guilty at least of telling only part of the truth. Seldom content with straightforward statements of fact, the Mugwumps interpreted and twisted their stories to suit themselves. Editorializing about Blaine in late September, for example, the New York Times stated, 'There is no speculation which he can resist, but, rich as he is, he has never earned money by any business or profession...' Blaine did initiate a libel suit against and Indianapolis Democratic newspaper...But many Americans considered it somewhat unsportsmanlike to go that far..."
Mugwumpery may be viewed as the roots of liberalism not because the Mugwumps' ideas were like the twentieth century's progressive-liberals' (they were more like today's conservatives') but rather because their approach to ad hoc adoption of a singular idea, intense social pressure to conform to politically correct doctrine and the use of the media to create social conformity to their ideology is very much the technique that the progressive-liberals adopted in the early twentieth century and continue to use today.
*John M. Dobson, Politics in the Gilded Age: A New Perspective On Reform. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. p. 141.
"In their energetic promotion of Cleveland and their unstinting criticism of Blaine, the Mugwump journalists sometimes exceeded the bounds of objectivity. If they avoided telling outright lies, they were guilty at least of telling only part of the truth. Seldom content with straightforward statements of fact, the Mugwumps interpreted and twisted their stories to suit themselves. Editorializing about Blaine in late September, for example, the New York Times stated, 'There is no speculation which he can resist, but, rich as he is, he has never earned money by any business or profession...' Blaine did initiate a libel suit against and Indianapolis Democratic newspaper...But many Americans considered it somewhat unsportsmanlike to go that far..."
Mugwumpery may be viewed as the roots of liberalism not because the Mugwumps' ideas were like the twentieth century's progressive-liberals' (they were more like today's conservatives') but rather because their approach to ad hoc adoption of a singular idea, intense social pressure to conform to politically correct doctrine and the use of the media to create social conformity to their ideology is very much the technique that the progressive-liberals adopted in the early twentieth century and continue to use today.
*John M. Dobson, Politics in the Gilded Age: A New Perspective On Reform. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. p. 141.
HBO Should Remake Twin Peaks
I recently re-watched Twin Peaks and still believe that the show is among the top five TV sci-fi/thrillers of all time. I would also include Twilight Zone, One Step Beyond, Outer Limits and X Files.
I have just written to HBO and suggested that they remake the series, perhaps with co-creators David Lynch and Mark Frost. They could also employ the same stars, notably Kyle MacLachlan. Some of the younger actors might play their previous roles grown up. James Hurley (James Marshall) might be the town's auto mechanic and similar roles could be played by Sherilyn Flynn (Audrey Horne, who might be the owner of the Great Northern) Madchen Amick (Shelley Johnson, who might be the new owner of the RR Diner), Dana Ashbrook (Bobby Briggs, who might be a military man) and so on.
One of the tragedies of television is that Twin Peaks aired for only two years (I think 2 1/2 seasons) because of low ratings in its second year. Part of the problem may have been ABC Television's restrictions on Lynch's creativity, which HBO would sidestep. Conversely, the show would attract viewers to HBO because of its cult following.
Sadly, some of the actors, such as Jack Nance (who played Piper Laurie's bumbling husband, Pete Martell), have passed away. In the original series Frank Silva played Killer Bob, the evil parasite spirit who comes from the Black Lodge to inhabit innocent hosts and cause them to become sociopathic murderers, the chief example being Leland Palmer, Laura Palmer's father. Sadly, Silva died of AIDS at the age of 45 in 1995.
I have thought of the ideal replacement for Silva in the new series: Hillary Clinton. Much like Killer Bob, Hillary's spirit aims to inhabit and create havoc and sociopathic behavior. She would fit the Killer Bob role perfectly, and it would keep her from doing harm in the real world. Plus the temperament would be a perfect match. She would not need to act.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
