Democratic Party Railroads America to National Socialism (Nazism)

Progressivism aims to institute totalitarian socialism step by step.  Its method involves severing two forms of decision making: marginal and strategic. Marginal decision making is incremental. Strategic decision making is long term and concerns the whole.

Individualism had succeeded in the United States when elitist Americans first proposed social democratic institutions in the 1880s and 1890s.  True, there was urban corruption and workers were not as well treated as they could have been.  But 19th century America progressed at a faster pace than it did in the twentieth century and workers were better off here than in Europe where social democracy had been installed, as in Germany and France. Real wages had increased two percent per year and innovation due to the capitalist imagination led, by the 1920s, to most Americans' being able to afford a car.

To overcome popular resistance to social democracy, which led to Nazism in the nation where it was invented, Germany, Walter Weyl, co-founder of The New Republic, advocated its gradual adoption.  Unlike most other Progressives, Weyl did not hide his belief in socialism.  Note that Weyl's parents had left Germany for the United States around the time that Bismarck invented the mixed economy and America was still laissez faire.  Assuming the nonsensical claim that the US had succeeded because of its frontier (ignoring that Russia still has a frontier today and so did Europe), social democrats like Weyl argued for institution of the European system in a country that outperformed Europe. In his book The New Democracy Weyl argues that those who favored socialism needed to gradually proceed on numerous fronts.

Weyl did not favor the social democracy of Germany but that of France.  About two decades after Weyl's death in 1919 France capitulated to Hitler's occupation and  cooperated in sending 76,000 Jews to concentration camps.  Weyl was a Jew whose parents had left Germany and its social democracy for the United States.Yet, he lacked the imagination to grasp why someone might prefer the American system to Germany's or France's. Astonishingly, today's social democrats, calling themselves progressives as did Weyl's colleague, Herbert Croly, echo Weyl's argument in favor of the Franco-German social democratic philosophy that led directly to the holocaust.

Weyl's method has been applied by the Democratic Party since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt.  If anyone should argue that one half or more of decision making should be made by the state, then he would be seen to  favor totalitarianism.  But on any one issue an argument (usually silly but made to sound convincing) can be made to support expansion of government. That is the marginal decision.  The public can be fooled by foolish reasoning on a single issue. 

But if you ask anyone whether they would like one half or more of their economic lives to be dominated by the government, as it currently is in the United States, they would say no.  That is the strategic decision.

Progressives like Weyl realized that in order to institute totalitarian rule they would need to win step-by-step on marginal arguments until the sum of the marginal arguments amounted to totalitarian rule.  Their claim that this process involved "pragmatism" was nonsensical. As government policies failed in New York City, as Social Security turned out to be an inter-generational wealth transfer, as the National Labor Relations Act failed, social democrats rejected not one.  The Democratic Party was never pragmatic; it was since Roosevelt a party of violent extremists using Weyl's deceptive, marginalist strategy.

 With 50% or more of the upper middle class's income going to taxes, with Wall Street's strangling control of the economy, with massive bailouts to corrupt industries, with a failed Social Security and health care system, America is no longer free. It is a government-dominated, totalitarian nation where one's slightest move is subject to violent state control.  One can no longer save to open a business. One can no longer open a school or start a business free of socialist violence.

An example of the Democratic Party's totalitarianism is President Obama's proposal for a high speed rail system.  On the margin, through the usual style of sophistic argument, this proposal can be made to sound convincing.  But if high speed rail is a good investment, private investors ought to be willing to make strategic investments in it. Who in the Democratic Party is willing to put their own money into this boondoggle?

If investors are willing to risk their own money in a high speed rail project, then it is convincing. If they are not, then it is unconvincing.  Are Warren Buffett and George Soros, two of the Obama administration's chief beneficiaries, willing to stake their own billions on high speed rail?  Or is the government going to violently extract tax money from foolish Americans who fail to grasp that an economic investment entails risks and costs.  Unless there are investors who are willing to risk their own money there likely aren't customers willing to buy.

Then, it is through Weyl's gradualist philosophy that Americans' every move is increasingly dictated through government violence.  If the National Socialist Democratic Party calls the Tea Party violent,  they should be reminded that the state only exists through violence, and when 50 percent of one's income is stolen through violence, the thinking public has an obligation to resist.

Greed Prevents New York's Teachers' Unions from Learning Math

New Yorkers for Growth sent the e-mail below (with this article attached) in favor of Andrew Cuomo's  property tax cap.  The article points out that Taxachussetts has lower taxes than New York and that the Taxachusetts tax cap, which is similar to the one that Governor Andrew Cuomo is proposing, has resulted in  better education than New York's more expensive education system.  More spending will not improve education.

Last semester a student in my class said that she was majoring in education and that after graduation she planned to become a principal.  I spent several classes on writing.  Following one of the classes the future principal asked, "Are we going to keep working on writing, or will we learn?" 

Its achievement is average but the state's spending is the nation's highest. The problem is its   "progressive" education approach, which reflects a Democratic Party-dominated education establishment.  Many New Yorkers prefer to spend thousands of dollars per year to send their children to Catholic schools whose budgets are one fourth --no typo-- public schools'.  In other words, New Yorkers spend $4,500 to send their children to Catholic schools to avoid public schools that cost $17,500 per student.  But the New York State Union of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers insist that too little is spent. 

Why did not Governor Pataki propose a tax cap five or ten years ago?  If the New York State GOP can answer that question without blaming the Democrats (for Pataki was a Republican, not a Democrat, and if what he does depends on the Democrats, then there is no point in voting for Republicans) then they will be on the road to improving their party. 

My complaint about Cuomo's proposal is that it does not go far enough.  Vouchers are preferable to the current education system.

>February 7, 2011


We thought you might be interested in this article that appeared in the Buffalo News yesterday. It compares New York's tax burden to that of our neighboring state, Massachusetts. The article highlights how Massachusetts' property tax cap has been a successful tool in driving down the overall tax burden for residents and small business owners.

Massachusetts, once notoriously known as "Taxachusetts," implemented a property tax cap in 1980 similar to the one now being proposed by Governor Cuomo and already adopted by the state Senate. Despite what teacher union critics in New York say, the property tax cap in Massachusetts has worked extraordinarily well.

As a result of the cap, the attitude toward taxation has changed. Localities have found ways to consolidate and reduce duplication of services. Taxpayers have found themselves with more power, while local governments have been forced to make a case for increased spending. The days of taxpayers being simply an endless source of financing for ever larger, less efficient government has come to an end.

The article also rebuts critic's most threatening claim that the quality of education will suffer. Massachusetts scores higher than New York in nearly every fourth and eighth grade reading, math and writing test and ranks number one in the nation in fourth and eighth grade math and reading. While New York spends the most per pupil in the country, our test scores consistently rank 24th or 25th in performance.

The proof is in the pudding. Massachusetts has successfully reduced its tax burden and New York can and must do the same. Of course, the tax cap is just one piece of the puzzle, albeit a critical one. We have a lot of work to do to change our "tax attitude," including reducing spending and ending unfunded mandates. New Yorkers for Growth will continue to be a leader in this fight, and we hope you'll join us in our efforts to make New York affordable again.


Best,

New Yorkers for Growth

Meshugana Jews Voted For Obama

In the recent past, Jews have been saddled with the holocaust, oppression in the Soviet Union and the dhimmi, embodied in the jizya tax, in many Islamic countries. Now that some have their own country, Israel, and others live in America, they are free from tyranny.  Ironically, though, given American freedom, many if not most American Jews  have supported reinstatement of the socialism that murdered them in Germany and the Soviet Union and from which they fled.  The self-destructive support for "progressivism"  is a martyr wish. The Jews' martyrdom is a biblical theme:  the Jews sin, suffer penalties like the breaking of the tablets by Moses, and then are redeemed through suffering like the Babylonian captivity.  

In voting for Obama 77 percent of American Jews aimed to induce a biblical cycle.  The Jews' favored candidate, whether through incompetence or intent, is about to destabilize the Middle East and pose a serious threat to Israel's existence.   In a recent letter David Horowitz writes:

The situation on the streets of Cairo is confusing, but so too is the message coming out of the Obama White House. The White House appears to be leaving Hosni Mubarak, an ally for three decades and lynchpin of Mideast stability, twisting slowly in the wind. And worse, it appears to be open to allowing the Muslim Brotherhood play a key role in a "reformed" Egyptian government, as long as the organization renounces violence and supports democracy... If the Obama White House really believes this is possible, it is even more hopelessly incompetent than we imagined...In suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood can be a democratic partner in Egypt, the Obama White House has outdone even the Carter administration's destabilization of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and its welcoming of the theocratic fascist Khoumeni as a "saint."...From the Bolshevik Revolution, through Mao and the Ayatollah Khoumeni, the left has always seen figures who turned out to be monsters as "reformers."
 

There were probably some Jews who supported Hitler in 1932, before he got to power. The effects on Israel of the Obama administration's actions could turn out worse than I thought likely in 2008 (but not worse than I feared).  His meshugana Jewish supporters bear responsibility for the threat that Muslim Brotherhood now poses to the Jews.

Kristofer Petersen-Overton Revisited

Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns,  which goes to 13,000 CUNY faculty and staff, published a recast version of my piece on the Kristofer Peterson-Overton matter that was covered in  The New York Post, New York Daily News, New York Times, and Inside Higher Education.  Brooklyn College's president, Karen Gould, decided to hire Petersen-Overton after the administration initially rescinded his contract.

Several of Karkhanis's associates and I made a few changes to my original piece to address President Gould's decision, which was of course politically important to her. My piece appears here.

THE
PATRIOT
RETURNS

   Vol. 54, No.1                                                          February 02, 2011

Freedom and Standards at CUNY: The Case of Kristofer Petersen-Overton

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, School of Business, Brooklyn College.

The Professional Staff Congress's (PSC's) president, Barbara Bowen, aimed to use the rescission of Kristofer Petersen-Overton's contract to bait Brooklyn College's and CUNY's administration and for partisan jockeying. Based on the Monday evening announcement from Brooklyn president Karen Gould, the Brooklyn College administration displayed astounding weakness in the face of faculty bullying.  Now, people of academic goodwill should press to uncover facts that would contribute to understanding the events that preceded the original appointment to improve hiring and personnel practices at Brooklyn College and at CUNY.

The New York Times, Inside Higher Education, and The New York Post  covered the Petersen-Overton case. There are two sides, but the facts are scrimpy. The administration stated that before hearing Petersen-Overton's political views they had determined that he was not yet qualified to teach--only to reverse their position, for reasons unknown, a few days later. Mr. Petersen-Overton and his supporters stated that the contract rescission reflected an incursion on his academic freedom. Rejecting the possibility of any alternative to the second explanation, President Bowen condemned Petersen-Overton's short-lived firing as "meddling in academic decisions" and, gasconaded that "the union will defend the rights of our members if their rights have been violated."

Bowen's claim is not fact. In the case of Professor Robert Johnson several years ago, Professor Johnson had uttered pro-Israel statements (in contrast to Mr. Petersen-Overton's anti-Israel position) and found his promotion bid denied. Rather than defend Dr. Johnson, as it is the union's fiduciary duty to do, Bowen and other union officials, such as then-UFS chair and New Caucus executive committee member Susan O'Malley, publicly attacked him. In that case Bowen failed to live up to a minimal legal duty, the avoidance of partisanship in defending faculty rights, and Dr. Johnson was forced to hire an attorney to successfully defend himself.

Now, defending Mr. Petersen-Overton's left wing anti-Zionism, Bowen claims that her support for free speech is unqualified. This shift is consistent with a pattern whereby the PSC's leadership aims to represent those who are politically correct and to squelch those who are not.

There are a number of questions that need to be asked before anyone can conclude much about Overton's firing. Does Brooklyn College generally hire doctoral students to teach master's students? If so, do the favored doctoral students consistently adhere to left-wing ideology? Is there bi-partisanship in offering adjunct positions to doctoral students, or is the ratio of Democrats to Republicans 100-0? Have CUNY and Brooklyn College established best practice guidelines for the hiring of adjuncts?

Conrad, Haworth and Millar (1993), in a book on master's degree programs, note that non-academic adjuncts play a crucial role in supplying practical experience that supplements theory. Many master's students in political science aim for careers in diplomacy or government. Does Mr. Petersen-Overton supply such experience? Or is he a shill for ideologically committed advisors and their cronies in the PSC? Does the political science department ever offer adjunct teaching posts to doctoral students who agree with Bernard Lewis (2001), or is the ideological tenor monotone, the drumbeat repetitive, and the harp played only with the left hand?

References

Conrad, CP, Haworth , JG, Millar, SB. A Silent Success: Master's Education in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Lewis, B. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. New York: WW Norton & Co. 2001.

 

Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Editor-in-Chief

Issues of The Patriot may be accessed at
http://www.patriotreturns.com
Archived editions are available at
http://www.patriotreturns.com/archive.htm