TotD 5: ‘Class Warfare’ Strikes Again!

The Democrats remind us, yet again, that they are pious Marxists.

Among the Obama administration’s successful campaign tactics in 2012 was the “evil capitalist” label that it slung at Mitt Romney. Given Romney’s successful business record and accompanying inability to defend the morality of capitalism, the former Republican nominee was tarred and feathered as an out of touch elitist. In the confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch, the Democrats are at it again.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein initially hoped to portray the Supreme Court nominee as an opponent of women and grilled Gorsuch on the abortion issue. With no pithy sound bites to indict him, Feinstein chastised Gorsuch for managing to “avoid any specificity” in his abortion remarks. After Feinstein’s failure, New York Senator Chuck Schumer claimed in one speech that Gorsuch is “someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology” and let on that Gorsuch’s “vulnerability” was that he possesses an “anti-worker, pro-corporate record.”

Not to be outdone by her peers, Massachusetts Senator and class agitator extraordinaire Elizabeth Warren was even more explicit in a recent Boston Globe editorial so laced with anti-business vitriol that it could serve as the intro to The Communist Manifesto.

Warren explains that “recent court decisions have let giant corporations that cheated their consumers off the hook, unleashed a flood of secret money into the political process, and made it easier for businesses to abuse and discriminate against their employees.” She adds that “If he [Gorsuch] had his way, he’d make it even easier for corporations to challenge health and safety rules that prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining public safety, or cheating people out of their hard-earned savings.”

In Warren’s opinion, businesses would blithely poison, extort and even murder their customers with abandon were it not for noble government bureaucrats who reign them in. In other words, government force is what keeps entrepreneurs from violently eliminating their revenue source, and customers ought to mistrust and even despise the very people that create their gadgets and gizmos. Warren’s conspiratorial suspicions indicate that she has probably never run a business in her life and likely screens her Dunkin Donuts coffee to ensure the creamer was not swapped with ricin.

The source for this irrational hatred is the deep Marxism that animates today’s leftist intellectual establishment. Gorsuch’s originalism, says Warren, is a cover for his true desire: to aid and abet his “right wing buddies” in their quest to defraud the common man for their own benefit.

On this view, society consists of warring collectives that work to gain power in a zero-sum “class conflict.” People do not have free will and are wholly conditioned by their material conditions, say the Marxists, so it is a mistake to think that judicial theories matter as much as judicial outcomes do. Gorsuch’s judicial principles, for the left, are window dressing meant to apologize for and justify what really matters: which collective gang he wants to prevail in the societal melee.

The attempt to portray Gorsuch as a corporate pawn is more than an attack on originalism or the Republican party. It is an attack on judicial philosophy itself.

TotD 4: A Day Without A Leftist

Feminism is about Marxism and left wing politics, not actual women.

When Donald Trump was elected, feminists around the country were livid that such a man could win the presidency. The day after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, several major cities in the US were flooded with women in pink hats toting signs about “pussy grabbing.” Yet, only 23% of American women identify as feminists. Further, Trump won close to 40% of the female vote, overall. What gives? Isn’t 20% a low figure for feminism in today’s America?

The fact is that feminism is not what it used to be. The original feminists in the 19th and 20th centuries were motivated by a particular political goal: the ability for women to exercise their individual rights on a par with men. In contrast, today’s feminism embraces the so-called “intersectional” approach. In the words of stand-up comedian Ava Vidal, intersectionality is the view that “certain groups of women have multi-layered facets in life that they have to deal with” and “there is no one-size-fits-all type of feminism.” In other words,  all women are oppressed but some women are more oppressed than others.

Intersectionality is the political left’s makeshift solution to what Dave Rubin aptly calls the “oppression olympics,” wherein various minority groups come forward with a narrative as to why each is the more victimized. These “class interests” do not always coincide, because some groups lobby the government more effectively than others. To prevent these pressure groups from eating one another, their leaders have unite their ire against common enemies, such as capitalism, white males, and Christians. Hence the situation we live in today.

The intersectional feminist movement has its philosophic roots in both Marxism and egalitarianism. Feminism is Marxist insofar as it divides society into classes (men vs women) and then argues that progress can only obtain by struggle between the classes. Feminism is egalitarian insofar as denies that inherent differences between men and women exist. Then, when those differences manifest, the feminists claim misogyny as the cause. In other words, justice consists in treating unequal things as though they were equal.

Marxism promises a utopia in the future where everyone is equal. Egalitarianism raises equality as the standard for what is just. The two fit together like a rusty old furnace and the inferno that roars within.

The latest intersectional feminist powwow occurred today and was advertised as “A Day Without A Woman.” The event was a planned general strike, akin to an earlier strike aimed at immigrants. That strike was a flop, but the feminists are not discouraged. They believe the “Era of Trump” is their time to shine.

The event was scheduled to coincide with International Women’s Day, itself a holiday first created by the American Socialist Party in 1909. The strike organizers encouraged women to take the day off of work, wear red in public and boycott businesses not owned by either women or minorities. A recent article in Vox illustrates the organizers’ goals and ideology clearly.

“Many women,” the piece explains, “have little use for the ‘lean-in’ style of feminism that focuses on corporate achievement or personal empowerment.” For the strikers, the feminist message is not so much about individual women doing well as it is about gaining ground for the sisterhood, a collective that has been oppressed for decades by a sinister patriarchy ruled by men.

The author continues:

“When we think of combating ‘violence’ against women, strike organizers argue that we shouldn’t limit our imagination to things like domestic violence or sexual violence. We should also think about ‘the violence of the market, of debt, of capitalist property relations, and of the state; the violence of discriminatory policies against lesbian, trans and queer women; the violence of state criminalization of migratory movements; the violence of mass incarceration; and the institutional violence against women’s bodies through abortion bans and lack of access to free healthcare and free abortion.”

For intersectional feminists, “the market” and “capitalist property relations” are forms of violence equivalent to “domestic violence or sexual violence” and “mass incarceration.” These Alinskyite she-bears conflate economic power with political power and think that the power to produce is on a par with the power to kill or threaten.

Capitalism is based on voluntary, peaceful exchange of value for value. As Ayn Rand explained, a businessmen in a free market can only exercise power of production; that is, the power to offer goods and services to whomever chooses to purchase them. Government bureaucrats, on the other hand, exercise the political power to arrest and kill others. A proper government uses its power to remove force from society and place it under objective control. Political power is coercion; economic power is creation.

The problem in America today is not that intersectional feminism has too few adherents; the problem is that it has any at all.

TotD 3: Have Republicans Really Changed?

In their essentials, I say no.

It has been widely reported that the party of Reagan has become the party of Trump, and that this represents a major political shift. Some say a momentous quake in the zeitgeist, or a major political realignment. Is it, really?

Recently, Teflon-Don called upon “both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth.” Earlier this year, he promised that “…we’re going to have insurance for everybody…” and that “…there was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it… that’s not going to happen with us.”

Trump is not an advocate for the free market, or limited government, or individual rights. He promotes economic nationalism. He wants to clamp down on immigration. He refuses to cut social security and medicare. Reagan fans remember when he asked the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall. Trump groupies swoon when the Donald tells them he will a build a wall. On the surface, Trump appears to be a divergence from the traditional Republican, a misshapen defect that somehow made it through the Reaganite, GOP assembly line.

Many Reaganites think this is true. Consider David Brooks at the New York Times, a typical conservative specimen. In a recent column, he argues that “the old Reagan conservatism was economic individualism restrained by social and religious traditionalism,” and that “Trumpism is all about protection, security and order.” For Brooks, “healthy American political philosophies balance individualism and collectivism, personal freedom and communal cohesion…”

In other words, it is “healthy” to compromise your principles and pragmatically endorse individual rights only when it is convenient to do so. The individual is self-made, except when he must serve his community. The individual is free to produce and trade, except when tradition demands he sacrifice. The individual has reason, except on Sundays when he defers to religious dogma.

Brooks rationalizes his pragmatism, but leftist commentator Bryce Covert is more forthright. In her column on the subject she points out that even Paul Ryan, supposedly a principled advocate for limited government, defines freedom as “..the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need.”

She explains that “Conservatives are typically proponents of negative liberty: the freedom from constraints and impediments” and that “…Mr. Ryan inadvertently revived an idea that desperately needs to be resuscitated — the idea that freedom requires not just a lack of barriers, but also the conditions that allow people to live their lives fully.” “Deprivation,” she concludes, “is a constraint on Americans’ freedom.”

Covert is partially correct in her assessment: Ryan’s approach to freedom leads ultimately to statism. Where she goes wrong is in expecting Ryan to properly defend freedom in the first place.

In any war of ideas, the most consistent side will emerge victorious. As Ayn Rand once remarked, “there are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”

The proper defense for political and economic freedom rests ultimately in ethics, an area that pragmatists like Brooks and Ryan are unable to broach honestly or consistently. One cannot defend capitalism and limited government without acknowledging their moral base: individual rights. Instead, Republicans implicitly endorse the altruism celebrated openly by the left and attempt to rationalize the contradictions that follow. In doing this they undercut the moral defense of capitalism and ultimately help their enemies expand state power.

So have Republicans changed? Sure, they have become more consistent. Too bad it is in the wrong direction.

TotD 2: No, Voter ID Laws Are Not Racist

But they do help prevent vote fraud, and that is the point.

The perennial debate over stricter voter ID laws is in the news again. In a controversial decision, the Justice Department has recently reversed the Obama administration’s decision to a Texas voter ID law.
Critics on the left assert that voter ID laws are inherently discriminatory against minorities and the poor. They claim that the poor are unable to afford voter IDs and that asking them to get one is an undue burden that they cannot cope with. Furthermore, since racial minorities are disproportionately poor compared to whites, voter ID laws qualify as racial discrimination. Leftists also argue that voter ID laws unfairly skew election results in favor of Republicans.
This raises several obvious questions. First, are voter IDs that expensive or difficult to obtain?  Last I checked, a valid photo ID in NYC will run you anywhere between $8 and $15 depending on how old you are and where your birthday falls. Meanwhile, surveys show that 80% of Americans below the poverty line have cell phones, 96% have televisions and 97% have refrigerators. If you can afford a television or a phone, you can certainly afford a wallet-sized hunk of government-issued plastic.
What of the charge that ID laws are racist, because more minorities are poor? To see how absurd this is, note that our society is replete with activities that require a valid ID. You need a valid ID when you use a credit card, fly on an airplane, rent a car, buy liquor, pick up concert tickets, enter a bar, join the military, donate blood, open a bank account, buy cigarettes, get married, or pick up a prescription. Even high end grocery stores such as Sam’s Club and Costco will occasionally ask for an ID in order to verify that you have a valid membership. Are minorities discriminated against in these areas, too? Funny, I never hear about that.
It is probably true that requiring photo IDs reduces voter turnout, but this is not nearly as problematic as it might seem. Voter fraud is a rampant problem in the US, particularly in so-called “sanctuary cities” that do not enforce federal immigration law. In a recent Ohio investigation, it was found that over 380 non-citizens were registered to vote and approximately 80 of them cast at least 1 illegal ballot within the last year. If that sounds like a low number, keep in mind that there were 112 elections in Ohio that were either tied or decided by 1 vote in the last 3 years. In swing states, every vote matters!
Finally, what about the charge that Republicans benefit from voter ID laws? One poll conducted by Pew Research found that illegal immigrants who voted favor Democrats over Republicans by an 8 to 1 margin. If this is true in general, it would seem that support for Democrats is higher in the illegal immigrant community than it is in the population as a whole. So sure, the results may favor Republicans but that is because a higher proportion of legal voters want to vote Republican!
The truth is that this is all a smoke screen. Voter ID laws are meant to ensure that those who vote are legally able to do so. Those that oppose voter ID laws seek to win elections by enabling voter fraud. Voting is important; this is why we need stricter voter ID laws.

TotD 1: Trump is Right…Health Care is Complicated!

Unfortunately, this does not prevent people from trying to use government for it.

In a recent speech with state governors, President Trump admitted that implementing government health care is a tricky business and that Republicans are having a hard time pulling the plug. One would think that the wayward health care law, which is responsible for skyrocketing insurance premiums and deductibles, would be easy to ax. Even the standard issue, rose-colored glasses worn by Democrats cannot hide the fact that the bill has been a complete failure. Whence the trouble?

I remember when Obamacare was first rolled out to the public as a 20,000 page bill that nobody in our government seemed to have read. Nancy Pelosi clumsily explained that we would need to pass the bill in order to know what was in it. Healthcare.gov ended up costing three times what was expected and was launched months after the intended date due to mismanagement. I even remember when Obama said that Americans could keep their doctors, if they wanted. We know how that ended up.

Conservative and libertarian Americans flocked to Tea Party protests to oppose Obama’s attempts to expand socialized medicine, and today Americans cite “health care” and “dissatisfaction with government” as two of the largest issues facing the country. This was a healthy reaction but there were warnings that the law would be difficult to dislodge, if it was successfully passed. Wary observers may recall one Tea Party participant’s eloquent sign: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” The promise for free goods can corrupt even those Americans that are most suspicious of government.

During the campaign in 2016, Trump went so far as to say he was a “fan of the [individual] mandate” and that the more popular aspects of the law would remain. Today, Republican voters that oppose “socialized medicine” clamor to keep the parts of the bill that would help them personally. As Trump aptly put it: “People hate it…but now they see that the end is coming and they’re saying, ‘Oh, maybe we love it.’” “Repeal and Replace” has become “Rebrand and Re-neg.”

Programs like Obamacare are how government expansion occurs and persists in general. Government-sponsored goodies are as potent and addictive as heroin or cocaine, particularly when people are convinced that it is a right that they are owed. To fund the largess, the government raises taxes and imposes restrictions on businesses. Hard-done-by Americans organize into pressure groups to lobby for new handouts to mitigate the ruinous effects of the old handouts. By the end, a single entitlement thread has morphed into a regulatory spider-web.

This was done by design. Leftists for decades have known that Americans would reject explicit socialism, but would handily vote it in piecemeal if couched in the proper language.

Advocates for the free market were always aware that government health care would be a train wreck. What is one to expect when a gang of government bureaucrats, armed with their pens and the entitled screeching of their constituents, takes it upon itself to try to serve a complex, modern service to a population as large and diverse as the United States?

“You know, health care is a very complex subject,” Trump said. “If you do this, it affects nine different things. If you do that, it affects 15 different things.” Couldn’t agree more, Mr. President.