Statism: Obama’s theory of government

February 21, 2012

Peter Wehner had a good post in Commentary last week that, while talking about Obama’s latest risible budget proposal, neatly encapsulates the statist, progressive view of the relationship between the citizen and the State, Obama’s theory of government:

These numbers are important, but they need to be understood above all as a manifestation of a particular philosophy, which some have called reactionary liberalism. Barack Obama has an almost undiluted attachment for and belief in the wondrous powers of the federal government. He believes the role of the state is to redistribute wealth and level out differences. He would trade off greater prosperity in all classes and income brackets in order to narrow the gap in income inequality, which he considers to be a moral offense. Obama wants to punish wealth creators, empower unelected bureaucrats, undermine private enterprise and centralize power.

Beyond even that, Obama wants government to weaken, and eventually replace, civil society, create greater dependency, and expand the state’s reach into every nook and cranny of life, including into the internal life of the church. And at a time when Medicare in particular is driving us toward a Greece-like crisis, the president opposes any modernization of our entitlement state and savages those who are offering up reforms.

More than any president in our lifetime, Barack Obama identifies the state with society and wants society absorbed by the state.

(Emphasis added)

Wehner calls it “reactionary liberalism,” (1) but I think Goldberg (channeling H. G. Wells) names it best: “Liberal Fascism.” The State becomes the arbiter of a vague “Will of the People” (or “Spirit of the Nation,” or whatever), speaking for the collective and knowing better than the individual what the individual needs, for the good of the whole. Forget the goosestepping images of Nazis or Mussolini’s Blackshirts, and put side the insane racial nonsense the National Socialists added to Fascism; reactionary liberalism/liberal fascism can come with a warm smile and a motherly embrace, promising all sorts of wonderful things, if only you’ll be good and let Nanny State make the choices for you.

It is the infantilization of the individual citizen.

And it would be so easy to say “yes,” which is why, in 2012, we have to say “no.”

RELATED: In a later post, Wehner cites another example, that of Nancy Pelosi’s opinion on the HHS mandate and the proper response of religious organizations: “Shut up and obey.

Footnote:
(1) Although, really, the most reactionary people I’ve ever met have been supposedly broadminded liberals. Mildly challenge even one of their dearly held dogmas (such as the success of the New Deal or the desirability of abortion on demand), and many go into full frothing-and-shrieking mode. It’s almost Pavlovian.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

A video guide to those evil Republicans

December 16, 2011

In this latest installment of Firewall, Bill Whittle shows how it is that Republicans, whose party favors limited government and free markets, and was founded in opposition to slavery, can yet be the party of greed, fascism, and racism.

The answer is simple: because the Democrats say so.

Bill’s longer answer, however, is much more entertaining:

To go into more depth about the issues Bill raises, let me recommend two great books:

On the Democrats’ real history regarding race, there’s Bruce Bartlett’s meticulously documented “Wrong on Race: the Democratic Party’s buried past.”

On Fascism being a form of Socialism and both coming from the leftist, statist end of the political spectrum, Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change” is essential reading.

Meanwhile, I have to get back to being evil.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


But don’t you dare call them “Socialists”

May 6, 2011

Okay, when you have an administration appointee writing about how the greatest danger to labor is the fact that capital is free to move where it can best be used, one wonders if, in the internal memos, they don’t spell it “Kapital.”

In this case, we’re talking about Craig Becker, a recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board, who was turned down by the Democratic-controlled Senate, and who now sits on the board that is persecuting Boeing for daring to open a plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, because of the lost production and revenue due to frequent strikes at their Washington State factories. The Daily Caller has the story:

Old law review articles obtained by The Daily Caller that were authored by Becker further inflame the already heated debate. “The right to engage in concerted activity that is enshrined in the Wagner Act – even when construed in strictly contractual terms – implicitly entails legal restraint of the freedom of capital,” he wrote in the January 1987 edition of the Harvard Law Review. “What threatens to eviscerate labor’s collective legal rights, therefore, is less the common law principle of individual liberty than the mobility of capital, which courts have held immune from popular control.”

“If you cut through all the academic speak here, in effect, what he’s saying is collective bargaining and the Wagner Act doesn’t set up a system of collective bargaining. It sets up a guaranteed outcome,” explained Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson. “What he’s saying here is labor unions can’t possibly succeed unless you guarantee their success. In his reading of the law, any notion of workers who choose to collectively bargain sitting down with their employer and working out a deal is gone.”

Emphasis added.

In other words, Becker wants a Big Government-Big Labor partnership to ensure Labor wins. Shouldn’t this raise serious questions about the impartiality and the politics of the NLRB?

One can argue where on the Leftist scale the Obama administration falls –Social Democrat, Progressive, Corporatist, Fabian Socialist, or Liberal Fascist– but it’s clear they are big-time statists hostile to the free-market capitalism on which this nation was built.

While one roots for Boeing and South Carolina in this fight, perhaps the next administration (assuming, I hope, Obama is not reelected) should consider eliminating the NLRB as an obsolete but dangerous relic of a bygone age.

via Jazz Shaw


Dear Mr. President: Don’t mess with Nikki Haley

April 29, 2011

Because you don’t stand a chance.


Pelosi: “Elections shouldn’t matter”

April 13, 2011

Well, at least she gets points for being honest about her elitist, anti-democratic, nigh-on fascist* values. While speaking to students at Tufts University last week, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives**, the woman who not too long ago was second in line to be President of the United States, had this to say:

To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Because there are so many things at risk right now — perhaps in another question I’ll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do…But when it comes to a place where there doesn’t seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now.

“Elections shouldn’t matter.” We’ve seen this time and again since last November: at the national level, the President and the Democratic leadership regularly act as if they hadn’t suffered a total repudiation at the polls, still pushing an agenda the nation clearly rejected. And at the state level, they’ve brought out their allies in Wisconsin, Ohio, Washington, New Jersey, Idaho, and soon in Sacramento to intimidate the elected representatives of the people and overturn the results of a democratic election. Tells you all one needs to know about the leadership of the Democratic Party — and why they should never, ever win another election in our lifetimes.

via Lance

LINKS: Real Clear Politics has the video. Historian Steven Hayward analyzes this and shows how it represents a continuity in Progressive thought from its foundations to the present.

*Trust me, I’m not exaggerating — Read Goldberg’s book. This appeal to “shared values,” a unity that rises above politics, a “third way” — it’s all straight out of the Progressive/liberal fascist manual and has a history stretching back more than 100 years.

**You know, the chamber often called “The People’s House,” whose frequent elections are supposed to better reflect popular will. But, if elections “shouldn’t matter as much as they do,” then who are they representing?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Guardian goes “full Orwell”

January 14, 2011

I realize the UK’s Guardian is pretty far down toward the Left end of the scale, but does Commissar Simon Jenkins realize just how… dumb this headline and summary sounds?

Free speech can’t exist unchained. US politics needs the tonic of order

If America is to speak in a way that heals, as Obama wishes, it needs the curbs and regulations that make freedom of expression real

Didn’t guys named “Benito” and “Adolph” say much the same thing in the last century?

Really, read the whole thing. Not only does this condescending tool push the “evil Right-wing rhetoric drove a deranged man over the edge” meme (A deranged man, who, according to friends, paid no attention to politics and never even watched TV. What did Palin use, Simon? Mind-control rays?), but then he tells this leftist Alice-in-Wonderland version of the opposition to ObamaCare, in which Americans against socialized medicine are ignorant, racist homophobes. Therefore, of course, we need “reasonable regulation” (including the Fairness Doctrine, with terms set by wise men such as Jenkins) of free speech in order to save free speech, because we can’t handle free speech.

And black is white.

And down is up.

And all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Just amazing.

RELATED: Maybe Congressman Jim Clyburn (D-Statist) should get his own column with The Guardian. He’d fit right in.

UPDATE: Thanks for the link, Ed!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Big Green and the enviro-statist agenda, part 2

October 6, 2010

Last week, PJTV presented the first in its three-part series on the politics of the environmental movement, presenting an overview of its goals and its relationship with government, particularly the Democratic Party and the administrative state.

This week, Joe Hicks and his guests take a closer look at the origins of the movement in the 1960s left-wing counterculture,  the large sums of money they have to spend, and their alliance with big business* to push harmful measures such as cap-and-trade:

*(Don’t be surprised. As Goldberg pointed out in Liberal Fascism, there’s a natural urge in big corporations to ally with statists if if means guaranteed profits and restrictions on smaller competitors. Think of the utilities under FDR, or the deals the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies almost cut with the administration over ObamaCare. The cooperation between Big Green and Big Business highlighted in this video is just another example.)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)