How to Fight the Leftist Cultural Hegemony

A frequent question I hear in Meetups and other forums dedicated to ideas is: why do people assume that the actions of leftists are noble and motivated by morality, while those of conservatives and libertarians are viewed as cynical and immoral?

The answer is that ethics is more fundamental than politics because all political positions presuppose some ethical framework that its advocates seek to realize. Governments institute policies to achieve particular ends, according to what the prevailing ethics espouses.

The fact is that the dominant ethical theory across the entire political spectrum is altruism. Altruism, meaning “other-ism,” is a coin termed by French philosopher Auguste Comte which describes the view that ethical actions preclude selfishness. On the altruist premise, ethics consists in sacrificing your interests to the interests of the group, the community, the nation, the occasional neighbor, or an entity in another dimension. The beneficiary of any action, for an altruist, must not be the person acting. More consistent altruists, such as Immanuel Kant, even go so far as to say that actions cease to have “moral import” to the extent that they are self-interested.

It is important not to confuse altruism with benevolence. Opening a door for someone with full hands or giving up your seat on the train for an old lady are not instances of altruism. Nor it is altruism if you treat your friends to dinner, or cancel and stay home with your sick child if she needs your help. These are not sacrifices but trades, motivated by the fact that one’s resources and time are finite.

The essential difference is that while self-interested people trade lesser values for higher values, altruism demands that people exchange lesser values (or even non-values) for actual values. Such an act is not a trade, but a sacrifice. If you enter a burning building to save your wife because you love and her and would not want to live without her, then it is not a sacrifice to brave the flames to try and pull her out. If, on the other hand, you go in and risk your neck to save your neighbor’s wife, only to let yours burn to ashes, then you have committed a heinous crime against your own life.

Democrats today advocate a mixture of fascism and socialism in their politics, both of which rest on the moral framework of altruism. A politics based on altruism elevates need above all else and cashes in on the fact that people will go to great lengths to help the “have-nots,” as mandated by their morality. When this happens, objectivity and context go out the window, and all that remains is emotionalism based on helping those who are in need.

When leftists advocate taxing the rich, it is altruism that conjures the image of Oliver Twist asking for just a little more porridge, rather than the faceless businessmen who expended their effort to create the wealth in the first place. When leftists hurl invective at police officers for allegedly targeting innocent blacks, it is altruism that sparks the memory of Bull Connor and his hounds, rather than the paranoid cop who is afraid to draw his gun when threatened for fear of being called a racist. When leftists push for a ban on fracking or DDT to stop corporations from despoiling the land, it is altruism that brings to mind Bambi’s mother rather than the millions of people who will die of malaria and insufficient heating oil.

The social justice warriors have moved the needle in this country, and they have done so in a relatively short span of time. It was not too long ago that movies made fun of men dressed as women, and today people who think it odd when full-grown men elect to use the lady’s restroom are made to feel like bigots. It used to be the case that Martin Luther King’s famous quote about the content of one’s character being more important than the color of one’s skin was the essence of anti-racism. Today, Black Lives Matter tells whites that they have privilege because they are white. Then there are the women clad in “pussy hats” who march through New York City, a metropolitan hub for the freest country in history, demanding an end to “patriarchy” while simultaneously calling people “Islamophobic” for criticizing theocratic regimes in the Middle East when they treat women like Sharia Barbie.

Today’s society is a microcosm of what has gone on historically. Institutions dominated by the left assume that socialism is not immoral but impractical and that those who advocate it are idealists who get carried away. According to this view, Ho Chi Minh was not a Marxist zealot seeking to enslave Vietnam under totalitarianism but was a freedom fighter trying to prevent his country from turning into another banana republic. According to this view, Castro may have gone too far in some respects, but he brought health care to Cuba. According to this view, Stalin screwed up what Lenin started, and if only Trotsky or Bukharin were in charge, then we would have had “true socialism” and paradise on earth. I used to know a fellow software developer who told me that he thought communism was ideal, but that people are too greedy and lazy to make it work.

The explanation for all of this is that altruism has provided the left with the moral currency that they need to get their agenda passed. Even those traditionally opposed to the left cannot help but look at the lunatic, vacant face of a former barista advocating for socialism and think: “she is young and naïve and we have the same goals, even though her methods differ from mine.”

This brings me to the conservatives. Many are religious and accept altruism, except that they make allowances for the free market often on pragmatic grounds. Even when they argue that capitalism works better than socialism, they cling to the altruist ethics that lead to a socialist conclusion. A famous example is Adam Smith, who claimed that while individual selfish actions are not moral, they give rise to something that is, in aggregate, moral. One cannot defend capitalism by moral alchemy; nobody but a Machiavellian pragmatist believes that two wrongs make a right.

The conservatives are incessantly put on the defensive because the fundamental debate is moral, not economic and they support the altruist ethics. It was Herbert Hoover, a conservative, who initiated the policies that would later develop into Roosevelt’s “New Deal.” It was Eisenhower, a conservative, that gave rise to the lie that big business was corrupting America’s angelic legislators via something called the “military-industrial complex.” It was Richard Nixon, a conservative, who gave us the EPA and finished off the gold standard. It was Ronald Reagan, a conservative, who introduced the term “social safety net” to the political lexicon. It was George W. Bush, a conservative, who argued that America’s proper foreign policy was to serve other nations and bring them “democracy,” without noticing that democracy is not the American political philosophy. Conservatives had one job: oppose the left, and they failed miserably.

If one wants to oppose the leftist cultural hegemony, one must challenge the ethical framework on which it depends.

Now one might reasonably ask: What does this entail, exactly? Does it mean that we advocate for lying, cheating, and stealing if we reject altruism? Do we promote Nietzsche’s ubermensch doctrine, and cull the weak like the Nazis? Do we laud people like Bernie Madoff, who was able to work the system and get away with it for a long time? No.

The proper ethical position today for those concerned with our political trend is to point out that the current moral debate is a false alternative. The choice is not between sacrificing oneself to others nor sacrificing others to oneself, but whether you are for or against sacrifice at all. Rather than grant that the left is doing the right thing the wrong way, one must assert that they are doing the wrong thing the wrong way.

Since conservatives (and non-leftists generally) have not embraced this, they have failed to gain significant political ground because of it. While leftists are consistent altruists, conservatives are hypocritical altruists, and this is why they always seem to glide along while the leftist agenda continues, unopposed. For those religious conservatives, in particular, Anita Dunn, one of Obama’s communications directors, offered a stark concretization for the left’s dependence on altruism when she remarked that Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa were her favorite philosophers. If you accept Mother Teresa, don’t be surprised when your opponent turns into Mao.

‘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.

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.

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.

Why We Should Not Expel the Electoral College

A defense of America’s method for electing the president.

It is periodically fashionable for some Americans to question the electoral college, the mechanism used to elect the commander-in-chief. These individuals couch their position in language that portrays the staid institution as primitive or outdated. A recent petition circulated by the “progressive” MoveOn.org characteristically tries to make the case that the electoral college “has outlived its usefulness” and that it, along with the Constitution itself, was “written when communication was by Pony Express.”

This is curious rhetoric. One would do well to point out that the Pony Express point is an intellectually lazy one because that system actually came into existence in the late 1850’s, more than half a century after the Constitution was penned. The larger point, though, is that when the electoral college was installed has little bearing on how valid it is as an election mechanism. The reason for this is that the problem of political order is as old as human society itself. While our technology and culture may change with time, the core issues at stake with how human society is organized are timeless. It is my contention that the electoral college is an effective, albeit imperfect method for electing the president of the United States and that it should be preserved. To fully appreciate the brilliance of the electoral college, one must understand not only the way that it operates but the history behind its inception.

The electoral college is a system whereby Americans indirectly elect the president. Each state receives one electoral vote for each representative it has in the House of Representatives, plus another electoral vote for each of its two senators. Currently, the states possess 435 representatives and 100 senators between them. Additionally, the Twenty-Third Amendment to the Constitution provides Washington DC, the capital of the federal government, with three electoral votes. There are therefore 538 total electoral votes to allocate for president and a candidate must receive at least 270 to proclaim victory.

Though a state cannot unilaterally decide how many electoral votes it receives, it does have the ability to determine how to allocate the electoral votes that it possesses. On election day, voters cast their ballots in their home state. As the votes are tallied and the states determine the winning candidate in their jurisdiction, electoral votes are “called” for the candidates in the national election. Aside from Nebraska and Maine, all of the states employ a “winner-take-all” approach whereby the candidate that receives the most votes in the state receives all the electoral votes in that state. If there is a situation wherein no candidate for president receives at least 270 electoral votes, the president is elected by a vote in the House of Representatives while the vice president is elected by the Senate.

The individuals that cast the electoral votes in each state are known as “electors” and they take an oath to vote for the candidate that does the best in the state election that they serve. Curiously, there is a possibility that individual electors diverge from their state’s prescription; Such a person is known as a “faithless elector.” This has occurred in American history, but it is a rare phenomenon that is discouraged with state laws which levy a fine on such behavior. These laws have never been challenged in the courts, however, so there is some doubt as to whether such statutes are constitutional.

This is what is meant when it is said that America is not a democracy, but a republic. By definition, a democracy is a system of government where the prevailing power is unlimited majority rule. A society that restricts voting to specific matters can be called democratic, but it is technically not a full-fledged democracy. In a pure democracy,  the people would be able to vote not just on taxes and parades, but also on whether it is valid to dispose the life or property of specific individuals. One need only recall the story of Socrates, who was sentenced to death for “corrupting the youth” by vote in Ancient Athens, to see the dark side of unrestricted democracy. The electoral college entrusts the electors to vote as representatives of the general population.

Why allow a select group to cast the final ballots for the president rather than open it up, Athenian style, to the general populace? It is no secret that the American founding fathers, contrary to what some may believe, were not huge fans of direct democracy. Former president James Madison argued extensively in Federalist 10 that, with regards to government, “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Alexander Hamilton, the man who would go on to serve as the first Treasury Secretary and inspire a hit Broadway musical, was a monarchist sympathizer of the British system of government and sharply criticized the bloodshed in the French Revolution. Fans of the musical may be surprised that Hamilton believed that the greatest threat to American liberty, apart from the return of the British army to North America, was mob rule.  Ben Franklin, never at a loss for witty aphorisms, quipped that democracy is on a par with two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

The founding fathers sought to limit the “tyranny of the majority” caused by a democratic system when they drafted the Constitution. The method that they elected to use in this mission was federalism, a system of government where power is divided between a large, central governing body and smaller, regional governments. The founding fathers understood that if the United States was overly centralized the government would lose touch with people on a local level because traditions and culture differ from state to state. On the other hand, if there were no centralization at all then the states would be less able to protect themselves from foreign aggression. The US Constitution also limits the extent to which democracy plays a role in American politics by restricting what we can and cannot vote for. America can this be said to be a democratic, or representative, republic.

Apart from granting several powers to the state governments, the American founding fathers also implemented a system of checks and balances between the branches of the federal government to make it more difficult for any one person or political party to fully control it. The Congress is tasked with legislating, the president is tasked with enforcing the legislation passed by Congress and the Supreme Court is tasked with ensuring that the actions of the prior two branches are in accordance with the Constitution. Madison succinctly encapsulated the benefits of federalism when he wrote in Federalist 47 that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Like all federalist devices, the electoral college represents an attempt to mitigate the negative effects of democracy while still allowing for the common man to have a say in who his ruler is.

There are persistent opponents of the electoral college to this day, despite the arguments of the founders. Traditionally, these opponents have been agents of the Democratic party dating back to its creation under President Andrew Jackson. The most common objection raised by Jacksonian Democrats applies to the most recent election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, wherein Clinton won the popular vote but Trump won the election with over 300 electoral votes. The basic idea is that because more individual people voted for Clinton than for Trump the electoral college failed to account for the true tastes of the voters. Critics contend that a direct, popular vote is a better approach to elect the president.

This argument overlooks the federalist character of the USA. The Constitution was originally ratified with the understanding that the federal government was created by the states, not the other way around. When the states ratified the Constitution they delegated some powers to the federal government and retained the remainder, as per the Tenth Amendment. The federal government, then, was created not by the act of a single, united American people but rather the various peoples of each individual state. As such, it is the states that select the president, not the populace at large. It is not the people of the US that elect the president but rather the people of each state that elect the president. If there were a direct election by popular vote, the largest and most populous cities would carry a disproportionate weight in the election. The states that have more populous cities, such as Texas and California, would overshadow the states with smaller cities such as Wyoming and Delaware. The result is a complete collapse of individual state sovereignty and representation.

Advocates for the popular vote may argue that the electoral system also disenfranchises states, it just does so for a different set of them. Under the electoral system, presidential candidates spend a majority of their time and ad money in the so-called “swing states” such as Iowa and Florida and less time in stronghold states such as Alabama and New York. This view is also misguided. The truth is that the median voters in any election decide the outcome because the voters at the extreme ends cancel each other out; this is a basic mathematical fact. In a direct popular vote, a simple majority would be able to elect the president without a need to appeal to the minority position at all. The electoral college shifts this “median voter effect” to the state level and makes it more difficult to overlook those with a minority position.

To see why this is, let’s look at a short example. Consider a minority group that numbers approximately half a percent of the total population; as of 2016, this is a group of about 1.5 million people overall. In a direct popular vote their voice is a drop in the bucket and no candidate worth their salt would appeal to such a small niche group. Now suppose a modest, politically conscious chunk of that minority group moved to a state with a smaller population, say Wyoming with a population of half a million. If even one tenth of our beleaguered minority group lived in Wyoming, then they would comprise nearly 30% of the total population of Wyoming, a sizable percentage. When it comes time to campaign, the candidate that seeks to gain the electoral votes in Wyoming would be unable to simply ignore the minority group and they would have a better chance of getting their voice heard in the national election. There is a useful side effect here that the state politics of Wyoming would be more conducive to the goals and interests of the minority group. Apart from casting ballots every four years, individuals vote with their feet all the time when they move to different states.

American federalism remains an innovative solution to the problem of political order. This is not the first time in history that aspersions were cast on the electoral college system and it will not be the last. We should be suspicious of those that seek to overturn it not by refuting the arguments that gave rise to it, but by portraying it as old and outdated. Tyrannical government, after all, is older than federalism; I leave it to you to decide which is the more primitive relic.

Election 2016: A Rebuke to Democrats

A wake-up call to the American left in the wake of a Trump victory.

The 2016 American presidential election was a landslide victory for Donald Trump as an individual and populism as an ideology. Americans in many states that were expected to vote Democrat instead rebelled against the elite voices in academia, Washington DC, the mainstream media, and Hollywood to vote instead for a foul-mouthed septuagenarian with a Twitter addiction and a reality television career.

This election was certainly what statistician Nassim Taleb would call a “black swan” event; that is, an outlier that one cannot foresee with considerable consequences. Few predicted that a man with no political experience, a large personal bankroll, and fiery rhetoric would defeat the Clintons, one of the strongest political machines in American history. Now that we are in the twilight of the Obama administration and the age of Trump looms ahead, I think it best for us to dissect the election results objectively and assess the good, the bad, and the ugly.

It has become fashionable in many quarters to blame the election results on a tide of racism and xenophobia. Many vocal Democrats in California, New York, Washington DC and Chicago have come to the conclusion that the majority of Trump supporters are bigots and that this is why Hillary Clinton lost in her bid for the presidency. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth.

It all began last fall, when Trump’s opponents in the media first revealed a strategy to assassinate Donald Trump’s character with early attempts to link Donald Trump to white nationalist David Duke, who had not even endorsed Trump at the time the media had demanded “accountability” from the Republican candidate. Trump took a strong position on illegal immigration and this was portrayed as an indictment of all Mexicans as rapists and criminals. Trump took a strong position on refusing refugees from a war-torn country with a known anti-American ideology and this was portrayed as “Islamophobia.” Trump took an aggressive approach to Megyn Kelly’s criticisms of the way he feuded with Rosie O’ Donnell in 2007 and this was portrayed as  “misogyny.” Trump called his opponent a “nasty woman” during one of the debates and Democratic women reappropriated the term as though it applied to all of them.

These arguments are all, in fact, common fallacies used in public discourse. The David Duke connection is a classic guilt by association play, since nobody can control who endorses them and why. Just because two individuals share a common position on a single issue, it does not mean that they therefore agree on every issue. Consider for instance that the Communist Party of the USA was excited for Hillary Clinton in this election cycle; we should not take that as license to believe Clinton wants to destroy the institution of private property. The Nation of Islam endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, but that does mean Obama and Louis Farrakhan agree on everything under the sun. These allegations are good examples of composition fallacies intended to mobilize large segments of “victim groups” to view Trump’s election on a par with Kristallnacht and to therefore act appropriately. There is also the amusing fact that these charges ignore crucial facts about the subject that they intend to “explore.” Mexico is a nation state and Islam is a religion; neither is a race, so criticizing either one is not a racist action. The media attacked Donald Trump for his character and the average Democrat believed them, as did many moderates and some of the more Victorian conservatives.

Despite the fact that many Trump voters helped to elect Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, the media doubled-down on their allegations of racism. On election night, self-described communist Van Jones wen on to label the election a “whitelash against a changing country” on CNN. The same evening NPR’s Cokie Roberts stated that Americans voted against Clinton not  because they thought her untrustworthy, but because she was a woman. Not to be outdone in the niche market that have made them a household name, Vox cemented its role as a racial agitator a week after the election by putting out a story that claimed Trump won by tapping into racism, “the most powerful force in America.” Not content to let these media outlets speak for them, many on my own Facebook news feed parroted this message with startling comments, such as: “feeling stressed out by uneducated whites”, “America really let down women and minorities” and “So disappointed in America..We are far more racist, sexist and morally unjust than I thought we were…Not proud to be an American.” One person even went so far as to create a public Facebook thread as a “safe space for women and minorities” and explained that any comments posted by white males would be deleted. I didn’t ask her, but one wonders what her reaction would have been if I had decided to identify as a black woman on that particular evening and post something sympathetic on the thread; it sounds like she needs to check her privilege.

Herein lies my beef with the American left. For decades progressives have cried wolf on bigotry and labeled honest opponents as racist or misogynist with little evidence to back it up. In prior campaigns, the mainstream media succeeded in portraying George W Bush as a moron, John McCain as old and out of touch, and Mitt Romney as an elite financier with little connection to the common man. Alongside these particular critiques of the candidates, however, there was always an underlying message that Republicans are racist xenophobes who do not care for women and minorities.

What is most curious, though, is that many on the left do not seem to notice that in framing Republicans as bigoted they are in fact engaged in the same sort of collectivism that they are supposedly calling out. After Trump won, the usual divisive barrage ensued as nearly every media outlet explained that it was shocking that Trump had won more black votes than Romney and McCain. Embarrassed pollsters who called the election for Clinton sought to repair the damage done to their reputations by slicing and dicing the election statistics in order to install awe in people who could never imagine a single Hispanic person voting for Trump. Prominent “progressives” like Ana Kasparian of the Young Turks put William Shakespeare to shame when she poetically explained that white women who voted for Trump were “fucking stupid”. Inherent in all of these reactions is the premise that the left have figured out what is in the interest of all members of the supposed “victim groups” that they champion. A person that holds this premise will think people foolish or naive when they diverge from what is prescribed to them, but the basic fallacy that they commit in thinking this way is that the groups are somehow more real than the individuals that comprise them. What needs to be said is that it is individuals and not classes that have interests, and not all people who receive government benefits and favors want to keep them. This is why Clinton lost: people vote as individuals and this time, they were not buying what ol’ Hilldabeast was selling.

The resentment generated by the left’s race-baiting has not stopped with mere words. Rioters in Oregon set fire to property amid assault against alleged Trump supporters. Individuals in California and New York City blocked traffic, preventing commuters from returning home from work and obstructing emergency vehicles. In New York City, marchers convened on Trump Tower chanting “rape Melania”, a slogan that garnered a Twitter following of nearly 350,000 before eventually subsiding. There is footage of a Trump voter in Chicago being beaten to within an inch of his life by several black youths. Actor Michael Shannon, the man cast to play General Zod in the Superman movies, came out recently with the statement that “if you voted for Trump, it is time for the urn”, and no, he was not in character when he did it. On a less violent note, there are lesbians and gays who fear that Trump will overturn their marriages within his first 100 days in office. I have even heard it said that Trump plans to grant federal funding to the Ku Klux Klan.

Where to begin with this disgraceful turn of events? One could start with the observation that the protesters are doing this in overwhelmingly Democratic states which voted Hillary, and that they are only hurting their political allies. One could elaborate that this country has a separation of powers and that the power of the president to do many of these fantastic acts is strictly limited. One could recount that prior to the election many in the media demonized Trump supporters as violent and chastised Trump for not vowing to accept the election results, only to prove themselves hypocrites when the election was over.

I am not a racist, misogynist, or a xenophobe; I believe in limited government and individual rights. Trump does not represent my values and neither did Hillary Clinton, but in my estimation he was the lesser evil compared to Clinton. To see why I think Clinton was an opportunistic influence peddler and a proven incompetent, see my essay here. Trump, on the other hand, has some short term policy proposals that I see as tactical victories.

On the issues, here is what I considered. I think the US needs a more conservative Supreme Court that will not overturn Citizens United in an attempt to punish corporate America at the expense of the First Amendment. I think healthcare is not a right and to treat it as such is a political, economic and moral disaster. Clinton made overtures that she would continue many of Obama’s policies and this was a deal-breaker for me on several counts. I am opposed to Obama’s behavior overseas when it comes to decrying American exceptionalism and claiming, as he did to people in South America, that there is “no difference between socialism and capitalism.” Obama’s failure to stick up for America as a unique nation with a secular Constitution and a respect for individual rights is shameful and his abdication of responsibility for American national security to the United Nations, a corrupt body that treats China, Russia and the United States as moral equals on the world stage, is feckless and uninspiring. I think climate change alarmism is a solution without a problem, and that the supposedly harmful effects of global warming are exaggerated by the environmentalist left to enable government more control over scientific research and ultimately, to roll back the achievements of the Industrial Revolution. Of course, I am also for lower taxes and enforcement of current immigration law.

A Trump presidency has considerable potential for negative long-term consequences as well as short-term positive ones. Trump is an untested and inexperienced world leader, and there is some doubt that he will be able to do the job effectively. Trump has praised dictators like Vladimir Putin and made it clear that he believes the market is “win / lose” rather than “win / win”. Trump is a protectionist who may do severe damage to American trade with foreign nations. The Donald has engaged in petty Twitter wars over personal sleights, and has changed his position on many key issues since the start of the campaign in order to garner his populist support.

I want to end this with an olive branch to those on the left: we need you in the coming years, and we need you to be sane. Save your ammo for the real fights and turn away from the regressive ideology that has animated you for the last decade.

The Egalitarian In Chief

All about the philosophy that informs the Obama administration.

As the end of Barack Obama’s administration approaches, we ought to discuss the overall impact that it has had on the United States. While no president is perfect, I believe the overall legacy is a negative one; allow me to defend this position with a discussion of the philosophy of the Obama administration.

When discussing Obama, I am often reminded of the 1972 election when Richard Nixon won in a landslide against George McGovern. At the time, McGovern was the candidate of the far left, which had come to prominence in the wake of the Vietnam War. Nixon positioned himself as the experienced, establishment candidate against a pacifist who would have surrendered America to the Soviet Union. To many voters, Nixon was the man who would prevent the hippies from taking political control. Though we later learned that Nixon had serious ethical and political issues of his own, voters at the time awarded Nixon every state except for Massachusetts. The resulting landslide meant that the radical left was exiled from American politics for two full generations.

The only popular Democratic presidency after the ’72 election was the Clinton administration. Carter, the only other Democrat to be president during this era, was largely seen as weak and ineffectual, as well as economically destructive. The headlines of Carter’s reign spoke of “the misery index”. Economists were baffled when high unemployment appeared at the same time as high inflation, which was considered impossible under the standard Keynesian economic model. Despite the personal scandals, Clinton’s approach was animated by a moderate, “third way” philosophy that had earned respect from many of his political opponents, particularly in the economic realm with the passage of welfare reform. The  ideological left made a return to mainstream American politics with the election of Obama in 2008, who was the first “New Left” American president.

Conservatives took pains to portray Obama as a Marxist in the 2008 presidential campaign, but the truth is that he only appropriates the ideology and rhetoric of class warfare when it suits him in his true agenda, which is more aptly described as egalitarian and not Marxist. Egalitarianism is the view that equality is the most important standard by which we ought to evaluate justice and morality. For egalitarians, equality is a higher value than standard of living or individual achievement. As a self-styled “community organizer” Barack Obama is a philosophical poster boy for Harvard philosopher John Rawls’ theory of “justice as fairness”. Let’s examine some of the specific instances where Obama’s policies have supported his egalitarian philosophy.

To begin, Obama has ratcheted up the traditional Democratic rhetoric against Wall Street and the banks. Along with Senators Sanders and Warren, Obama has called for higher taxes on the wealthy so that everyone is paying their “fair share” though there is little explanation for what is truly “fair” in this context. The president has done his part to convince Americans that the financial sector is parasitical, taking care to ignore the crucial role that the financial sector plays in allocating capital throughout the economy where it is most profitable and therefore most valued. When asked by the New York Times whether he would raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” even if it would result in less overall revenue, Obama responded that he would do so, stating that its not a matter of revenue, but “fairness”. Obama truly seems to believe that if a person possesses considerable wealth, irrespective of how they achieved it, then the government is justified in taking the “excess” and redistributing it to those “in need”. If one could custom the presidential seal for each person who holds the office, Obama’s would likely read “you didn’t build that”.

Obama’s administration is also responsible for raising government spending on “clean energy” and seeks to further restrict America’s consumption of electricity and fossil fuels. The truth is that energy is the lifeblood of an industrial, capitalist society and without it, America cannot effectively produce the goods and services that make innovations in every other field possible. At this stage, so-called clean energy is not only “clean”, but overly expensive and ineffective in generating what our economy needs to grow and expand. Any cost-conscious entrepreneur would recognize the value of efficient, renewable energy and invest in it if they thought that there was a chance for profits. Some, like Elon Musk, do this now (albeit with government subsidies). On the other hand, the Obama administration is engaged in a sort of wishful thinking: even if clean energy can’t compete with fossil fuels in terms of efficiency or yield, we still ought to invest in it at the expense of established, proven energy sources because it is “the right thing”.

The question to ask is: right for whom? Eschewing cheap, abundant energy for clean, expensive and rationed energy is not “right” for humans that seek to travel the world, mass produce medicines, generate high crop yields, and expand the reach of telecommunications. The administration’s attitude seems to be that human welfare needs to take a back seat when compared with the environment, the climate, and the mating habits of any and all non-human species on the planet which have an intrinsic value simply because they exist and therefore belong on an equal footing with humans. In other words, energy is great and all, but if it comes down to humans or polar bears, we will just have to go without and sacrifice for the sake of the polar bears. Ayn Rand put it best when she described the American left as seeking “an anti-Industrial Revolution”. To this I would add that the Obamas of the world seek an egalitarian energy policy where the welfare of humans is considered on a par with the welfare of lakes, ferrets, and redwoods.

On the international scene, the Obama administration has consistently acted to diminish America’s stature by denying American exceptionalism. The president applies his egalitarianism consistently to nations of the world as well as individual humans only to conclude that each and every country should be treated the same as every other, irrespective of its actual values and customs. Rather than serve as an eloquent spokesman for the peculiar and unique American tradition of individual rights, separation of powers, free elections, and limited government, Obama has told young people in Argentina that “there is no essential difference between socialism and capitalism” and that they should choose “whatever works”. Rather than stick up for American interests, Obama is willing to subvert American interests to those of the United Nations, an egalitarian body that gives equal representation to all nations, whether they are authoritarian or free.

Mr. Obama has also enthusiastically breathed new life into the tyrannical Cuban regime by pushing the end of the US embargo. This act does a remarkable disservice to Cubans that fled the country and further damages the cause of Cubans that remain on their home island, trying to resist the communist dictatorship. For generations, Cuban refugees have orally transmitted the horrors of communism to their children and grandchildren; they explain that it was the United States that gave them hope and allowed them to prosper after painfully leaving their homeland. The message to young Americans is clear: if Mr. Obama thinks that the Castro family is kosher, perhaps Fidel and Raul are not all that bad after all.

Obama also lacks the moral courage to openly identify radical Islam as a threat to the United States. Like his predecessor, George W Bush, Obama refuses to recognize that what motivates ISIS is not anti-imperialism gone amok but ideas, specifically religious ideas. It is not true that all religions are equal in the effects of their dogma; to see this, note that we are not discussing the threat posed by radical Jainism. Many on the left will argue that Christianity is just as bad as Islam when it comes to fundamentalism, but this is an ahistorical claim. The fact is that Christianity and Judaism have been severely weakened politically in the West after the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution relegated them to superstition among the intellectual and business class. The Middle East, on the other hand, is rife with countries stuck in the Middle Ages culturally.

Obama saw the so-called “Arab Spring” through the rose-colored glasses of his egalitarianism and mistook the political machinations of committed Islamists as the rumblings of a native people rising up against their government for an equal voice in a democratic system. The two biggest exponents of Islamism are Saudi Arabia and Iran, a nation that has been in a de facto state of war against the United States since they took hostages from our embassy in 1979. Instead, the president has opted to appease Iranian posturing by kicking the can down the road with regards to their nuclear weapons program.

What about health care, which has been the flagship of Obama’s political legacy? President Obama led the charge to institute his health care scheme as a means of correcting supposed market deficiencies in allocating health care. From the beginning, the left has sought to use health care as a means of undermining confidence in the market by driving up costs and lowering quality. In reality, the health care “market” was heavily regulated and distorted by government intervention prior to the Affordable Care Act. It started with Social Security, a program borrowed from Bismarck’s Germany to placate the middle class at the behest of socialist agitators. It continued with more guarantees in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. Occupational licensing laws were put forth to regulate “legitimate” medical care and outlaw “illegitimate” medical care, making it difficult and expensive for new doctors to enter the market. Finally, it was under Ronald Reagan that federal law required all visitors to emergency rooms to be subsidized by the taxpayers if they could not pay their own bills. The “market deficiencies” that Obama sought to “fix” with his health care bill were a result of government action, not the free market.

Obama’s solution for health care was naturally derived by applying his egalitarianism to health care coverage. The Affordable Care Act put into effect an individual mandate that requires all citizens have health care coverage irrespective of their health and ability to pay. Furthermore, Obamacare decrees that the services rendered by all plans need to be identical, even if particular aspects of the plan are nonsensical or uneconomical. For instance, thanks to Obama, a young man in his 30’s can now have his pregnancy covered by his insurance plan, and anyone diagnosed with a preexisting condition will be covered even though there is a near certain chance that the health care firm will need to pay out heavily for treatment. If we compare auto insurance to health care insurance, the mandate states that one can demand an insurer cover them after they have totaled their vehicle. Rather than treat health care as a service provided by the market, with a variety of products and pricing commensurate with consumer needs, Obama has made it clear that it would be unfair that some go without health care coverage, and that this is prima facie unacceptable.

Finally, there is the deterioration of race relations and the proliferation of identity politics that have occurred under the Obama administration. Despite the fact that Americans voted in a black president, there is a widespread belief that the majority of white Americans are racists. Opponents of the Obama administration that have legitimate criticism are lumped together with white nationalists as racist by the mainstream media and various academics. It is often taken as axiomatic by educated Americans that Caucasians benefit from “white privilege” and there is need to address “institutional racism”. The police have been slandered by Black Lives Matter activists, who claim that there is a preference for jailing black Americans over all others. If someone points out that the incarceration rate of blacks is commensurate with the rate at which they actually commit crimes, they are also conveniently labeled as racists and apologists for oppression.

While Obama has not done much to stoke these flames, he has not done a thing to refute them, even though he can easily do so. Instead, he opts to take the approach that because all people are equal, it must be the case that all cultures are equal as well, and that it would be unfitting for anyone to point out differences, let alone claim that one is better than the other with regard to a given activity or problem.

Obama is the first president to take egalitarianism seriously. Apart from the 2016 election, the Democrats lost seats in Congress in 2010, 2012 and 2014 despite Obama getting two terms as president. Obama has stepped into the fray consistently with the message that even when he is personally not on the ballot, his policies are. Americans heard that message and voted accordingly to reject Obama and his egalitarianism. Though many Americans are not philosophical in their orientation, they are discerning enough to note that the effects of egalitarianism are destructive and harmful when they are implemented.