The Real Problem With Regressives: They Live In A Fantasy Future

The most marvelous Daniel Greenfield has written (yet another) stellar piece, The Destruction of Contradiction.  He writes (in part, but do read the rest):

People, countries and ideas are destroyed through their inability to resolve their contradictions. The left gained a foothold in America by exploiting the country’s contradiction between its insistence on moral superiority and the actual way that the sausage got made. The left did not resolve this contradiction, instead it pretended that it had transcended the contradiction because when it made the sausage and broke the omelets, it was doing it for the greater good.

Under the old system, human misery was caused by the pragmatic problems of reality. Under the new system, it was caused by the idealistic necessities of the greater good.

For example, before ObamaCare someone who couldn’t get health insurance was suffering for pragmatic reasons. With the advent of ObamaCare, someone losing their doctors and getting stuck with insurance they couldn’t afford was suffering for the idealism of the greater good.

The contradiction between the aspirations of the ideal and the brutal necessities of the real were not resolved. Instead the left made the suffering of individuals and groups irrelevant.

Read that last part again.  It’s key to understanding the seeming heartlessness we perceive in the regressive, statist, and collectivist (i.e. totalitarian) policies of the radical left where “motive” (i.e. intent) matters more than outcome, where the “ends justify the means.”  We see this clearly in decades of failed leftist policies purportedly designed to help the poor; despite hard evidence that poverty is increasing and the middle class shrinking, the left clings to the welfare state not because it works but because they think it should work.  When you ignore reality (in this case measurable poverty for real people) in favor of unrealistic idealistic dreams of outcomes, you end up with Detroit, not a shining city on a hill.

And leftists do this all the time, on every issue.  In their drive for equality, they ignore the fact that everyone is not the same and that “equality” doesn’t and shouldn’t mean “sameness.”  Instead of allowing for this in their blueprint for the perfection of the human race, they plow ahead, lowering the bar for all in every arena they touch, be that education, law enforcement, or the military.

For example, the purportedly “equality-based” push for women to hold combat positions in the United States military sounds great, right?  Women can do anything a man can do as well as any man can do it.  Except we can’t.  Likewise, men can’t do everything we can do as well as we can do it.  That’s the way it is, that’s reality.  Leftists have no time or patience for facts or reality; they think they can bend both to their will.  So instead of carving out roles in the military that foreground women’s abilities and strengths, that take advantage of our superiority in some areas (face it, women are damned good shots, make excellent pilots, are great at strategy, make great diplomats (as long as they aren’t pretending to be men when they do it), etc.), leftists instead insist on their faulty “equality means everyone is the same as” rubric.  As one female Marine and Iraq veteran notes, “the best woman is still no match for the best man” in combat situations.  That’s just fact.  Indeed, leftists have conceded this very point by lowering physical training standards for women.  That’s not okay, and it’s a clear and obvious threat to our national security, but that doesn’t matter to the radical left.  Only that distant (and impossible) future matters.

Everyone should be the “same,” they think, and if they aren’t, we’ll just change “sameness” . . . and, while we’re at it, we’ll also punish people who’ve been “privileged” (be this because they are born white and male–a shameful thing to regressives–or because they are young and/or healthy).  It’s madness.  They don’t want to redistribute only wealth; they want to redistribute race, heritage, heredity, genetics, values, and a host of other things they have no power or control over.  It doesn’t work, can’t work, but they plow “forward!” working on the principle that destruction and misery are just the temporary but necessary steps toward some sort of fantastical Utopia that they envision as some sort of heaven on earth with our government overlords acting as our beneficent and loving council of gods raining manna down on the unwashed masses from their Olympian perches.

Breaking eggs is just part of the process.  Yes, Obama and his hordes, including House and Senate Dems (and Republicans), knew that millions upon millions would lose not only their health insurance plans but also their doctors.  They knew that Sarah Palin was right about death panels.  They also knew that millions upon millions would lose their jobs or have their hours drastically reduced.  This is built into 0Care.  Logic dictates that you don’t screw up a health insurance system that covered 253.4 million people to accommodate 35-50 million (depending on the estimates) people.  Logic dictates that if you have a government panel meting out treatments, you have not only rationing of care but a handful of people in DC deciding who lives and who dies.  Logic dictates that when you reduce the work week from 40 to 30 hours and make it financially onerous for employers to comply with the 0Care mandates, millions upon millions of people will lose their jobs and/or their health insurance.  But we’re not talking about logic.  Or results, at least not immediate results.  We’re talking about that drive toward a perfected human race living in Utopian harmony in the new Garden of Eden.  And yeah, shrugs the regressive, radical leftist, a bunch of people will suffer, even die.  That can’t be helped because some distant, fantasy future is the end goal (and yes, they actually do believe it’s achievable, but they also know that the only people living the new American dream will be the tiny segment of the population who do not live in abject poverty.  They are okay with that.).

So back to Daniel’s point that the suffering of individuals and even large groups does not matter to the self-proclaimed most “compassionate” of all people.  You see this when they attack cancer victims for complaining about losing the health insurance they like, for losing the long-term doctors they trust.  You see this when they dismiss more than 5 million people losing their health insurance as a “small percentage” of the “market.”  We’re not a “market,” we’re actual people, and the inability to grasp that in the here and now is what really distinguishes regressives.  They aren’t interested in the here and now.  They are only interested in that magical future they march in blinkered lockstep toward.

This is why they are totally comfortable trampling the rights of individuals and groups in the present.  It’s all for “The Greater Good” and that distant future they envision.  So a few thousand or even hundred thousand cancer victims die today . . . well, they were really just a drain on society anyway, right?  They can’t contribute to the brave, new world.

Remember when the Occupiers were calling for the overthrow of the government, a return to “nature”?  And remember how they dismissed the fact that millions of people can’t (physically or mentally) live the lifestyle they want?  One interviewee (I think it was in a Breitbart piece, but extra points to anyone who can find it) actually evoked Darwin in stating, with a dismissive shrug, that though it’s “mean” to say, some people have to die to fulfill the leftist mission.  Incredible.  Or not really at all incredible when you understand that the radicals running America into the ground have no compassion for anyone living in the present, their entire purpose is focused on an unrealistic, unachievable future replete with rainbows, sunny skies, and Skittles-pooping unicorns.

Stand in their way and prepare to be trampled under a herd of cloven-hoofed unicorns and to have your trampling cheered by the “compassionate” left.

Open Letter to President Obama: This Nation Simply Doesn’t Deserve You

Dear President Obama,

Despite your valiant efforts to cast the pearls of your vision for a “fundamental transformation” of America before the loutish, bitterly-clinging swine who call themselves Americans, you seem to have failed.  And oh, no, Mr. President, please don’t misunderstand me, this is not your failure; you are a man above all others, a visionary who sees the past and strives to achieve regressive goals where all others failed.  No, this is America’s failure.

Despite one hundred years of conditioning, Americans just aren’t ready for your efforts to breathe new life into an agenda once laughably believed to be dead because of its utter failure (and sure, a few hundred million dead, but hey! that’s the price you pay for Utopia. I get that).  But America, this woefully backward failed nation, is just not worthy of your efforts.  It’s a nation of horrors, war-mongering, greed, and . . . a bunch of other really bad stuff.

We know this because look at the resistance your courageous and bold efforts for The Greater Good have been met with:  “people waving tea bags around,” people who don’t “thank” you for your efforts to increase their taxes and ensure that more and more people are on food stamps, unemployment, and welfare, people who–let’s face it–simply refuse, stubbornly and against their own best interests, to embrace your most excellent and backward-looking brand of “change.”  These people don’t want your help, Sir, they just want to bumble along with that ridiculous “Constitutional Republic” and their “document of negative liberties.”  They are rigidly determined to thwart your best efforts to guide them, to show them that they are much better off if they, like the fabulous Julia–who depends on no man, only the government for assistance (was there ever a more compelling example of women’s equality and ability?), accept your guiding hand and your benevolent, absolute authority.

Instead, these people, these so-called Americans, these capitalist swine, these lovers of “freedom” (how over-rated is that?! How dated!) insist on defending their tired old selfish ways, insisting that equal justice and equal opportunity are better than social or environmental or racial justice and opportunity.  I mean, really!  How nuts is that?  These ignorant people with their fanciful ideas about a free market and a free people are beneath you.  Have you heard them mumbling inanely about how they get rights not from you, our President and Dear Leader, but from . . . wait for it! . . . their “Creator”?  How can you work with these “pro-America,” “pro-God” types who keep willfully misunderstanding your carefully-crafted message?  Why would you even want to do so?

Mr. President, this nation simply doesn’t deserve you.

Look at the way they reject your brilliant take-over of 1/6th of the economy with your “Affordable Healthcare Act.”  Look at the way they stomp their feet when you simply try to “rule” them as is your rightful place!  Look at the way they point to your logical attempts to ensure utter control over their lives and call it “overreach.”  Look at the way they call you a liar simply because you know best how to explain things to them so they’ll like them (and they still don’t! Such disobedience!).  Look at the way they mock you and everything you do; you, the man who inspired such elementary school hits as the “Mmm mmm mmm” song!  It’s unconscionable.

No, Mr. President, you are a man of and for a different era, an era in which the masses understood that they needed a supreme ruler.  You are, after all, a man of such historic and unprecedented potential that even the Nobel committee acknowledged it!  You are a man who wants to force your benevolence and vision on an undeserving nation.  That, I respectfully submit, is beneath you both as a Global Citizen, Visionary, and Ruler and as a man.  Why would you want to lift up and help these despicable rubes?  Why would you waste your time on a people who neither recognize your greatness nor respect it?  Why would you, in short, seek to impose your miraculous vision on such undeserving, ungrateful, unwashed masses?

No, Mr. President, your calling, great and wondrous as it is, must be greater, perhaps to lead the greater nations of this world: the Irans, the Venezualas, the Egypts, and the Syrias.  Heck, I imagine that the EU would be thrilled to have your most excellent, most high understanding of the world and the order you seek to establish.  Ignore these American ingrates, and set your sights on your higher calling where you can pursue your deepest desires amongst throngs who not only acknowledge your greatness but embrace it.  Go global.  America, so horribly out of touch with the rest of the world, is simply beneath you.  Leave it be.  They’ll fall under their own twisted ideas of “freedom” and that quaint notion of “American exceptionalism” . . .  not to mention that the whole checks and balances / three co-equal branches thing is truly hampering your ability to “get things done.” “Co-equal” is just not acceptable.  You must “rule”!

You belittle yourself by associating yourself with the people of America, with the nation of America.  Best to turn your back on her, her people, and her past.  It’s time, Sir, to move on to greener and redder pastures.  Your boundless greatness is wasted here, your magical presence rejected by the stubborn and “free-spirited” American people.  This cannot be tolerated, you must renounce your American citizenship in favor of global citizenship, set an example for the brave who know that globalism is the future!  You must turn your back on a nation that will never support you or your vision.

Mr. President, with all due respect, it would be best for you and for the world if you rejected your party’s nomination for a second term.  There is much to be done in the world, Sir, and only you–let’s face it–can get it done.  America is weighing you down, embarrassing you with its wealth, ideals, opportunity, morality, and exceptionalism.  You can do better.

Sincerely hoping you choose not to seek a second term,

Fuzzy

Fuzzy Rant: Why Leftists–Especially “Feminists”–Hate Stay-At-Home-Moms

The blatant anti-woman, anti-mom attack on Ann Romney by WH propagandist Hilary Rosen is par for the femisogynist course. Starting back in . . . oh, who the hell knows, but it was decades ago . . . “feminists” started attacking “traditional gender roles,” demanding that women be “free” to . . . well, to fit their mold as pseudo-men (being a stay-at-home-mom was right up there with being a “bitter clinger”).  Anyone not adhering to this new policy of “women have to be men to succeed” was to be ridiculed and shunned.

Crystal Wright over at TownHall has a good analysis of this:

In an attempt to explain why a generation of women born in the 1960s and 1970s are finding themselves living lives of solitude, a male friend emailed me All the Single Ladies, thinking I’d buy into the writer’s load of crap. The 39 year old single woman spends an endless amount of ink trying to convince herself and single women everywhere they are happy living empowered lives of solitude, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

This article is depressing and full of denial. Thanks to the 1960s Feminist movement which spawned theory of patriarchy, hatred of all things male, and re-engineered traditional gender roles, American culture from academia to business world led women could be all things to themselves: provider, wonder woman, and in some cases mothers without men in their lives. While some women may genuinely want to live alone, I believe most women, including the author, don’t want to live in solitude or be independent women.

Unfortunately, this post sexual feminist revolution compelled women to enter the work force with this mindset they should not only compete with men but act like them, out earn them and convince themselves they don’t need them. The grand result of this revolution waged by the likes of Gloria Steinem, Kate Millet, Chris Weedon, Bell Hooks and other horrid, male hating women is a generation of barren, single women because the gender roles have been thrown into chaos. Since 1976, the percentage of women in their early 40s who have not given birth has nearly doubled and marriage is on the decline. As Atlantic Kate Bolick wrote “Gloria Steinem said, in the 1970s, “We’re becoming the men we wanted to marry.” I doubt even she realized the prescience of her words.

Unfortunately, Wright goes a bit off topic talking about “Peter Pan” men and . . . well, who knows? It’s nuts. But her points about the teaching of “feminism” (actually femisogyny) in higher education are reflective of my own experience (except I was the on the wrong side, much to my own chagrin):

During my senior year of college at Georgetown University, I was forced to take a feminist criticism seminar as part of my Honors English major and hated it. I and other women in the class couldn’t understand why we were required to re-evaluate the great works of DH Lawrence, Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw and others as male demons who exploited women. Of course this couldn’t be further from the truth books like Madame Bovary and plays like Romeo& Juliet gave women a voice reflective of the times in which they lived.

You can’t deconstruct these great literature and impose a twisted patriarchal narrative upon them, sorry women aren’t stupid. We also had to read lots of lesbian feminist theory for the seminar, which was even more hateful of men but curiously weren’t assigned any theory written by women who denounced this feminist jihad on the arts and every other aspect of life.

What she writes is true, from whatever side (student or professor/lecturer/et al.).  I’d teach this craziness, even though I had my own doubts about it, and smile at students who challenged me.  Happily.  I wanted the rigor of independent thinking, the challenging of pat (too pat) ideas and ideology.  I wanted my students to think for themselves.  (My university, however, was not happy about this.  But that’s a blog post for another day.)

Universities, those in the top tiers anyway, discourage free thought. Actually, they discourage any thought.  Well, that’s not completely true, they encouraged fantasy and weirdness.  For example, early on, “feminists” loathed Ernest Hemingway.  Loathed him.  They “found” all sorts of white, male, patriarchal “evidence” (of some anti-woman “code”) in everything he wrote (this was made possible by the nuts who took the “isms,” married them with “deconstruction,” and smashed all that into a “post-structural” theory omelet to “prove” . . . oh who the hell knows what . . . it’s all Marxist crap at root, but they like to add layers in the absence of actual critical thinking).  But Hemingway scholars were loathe to buy into this, careers at risk and all, so they made him not the macho, He-Man hunter- fisherman, they made him the effeminate, gender-bending “androgynist” (this crap permeated Hemingway studies for a decade, but it made him acceptable to contemporary literary theory) .  Yep, Earnest was a great big gay who wished he was a woman.  Uh-huh. That’s how they teach him now. Not his literary merit (huge) or his skill with narrative (also huge), but as a great big woman, who didn’t get the free “health care” he needed to be the woman he always wanted to be.  Crazy?  Sure.  Who cares if he’s gay, straight, or whatever?  Oh, right, leftists bent on division.  Got it.

So, if your favorite fascist-supporting white male writer is “un,” how do you make him viable? Oh, I know! Make him gay.  Ish.  But this is typical leftist crap.  “Feminists” champion women’s rights . . . unless that right is to be a stay-at-home-mom or any other role that fits their “traditional gender role” tripe.  Oh, and it’s tripe.  When “feminists” aren’t trumpeting the rights of women to . . . well, never marry, have countless abortions, and receive “free” birth control, they simply ignore any and every abuse of women around the world.

Being a stay-at-home-mom is laughable, a joke, something to be diminished and admonished.  But actual feminists (not the post-70’s crop of femisogynists) didn’t believe that; they supported women who chose to stay at home; they supported women who wanted to be women (oh, yes, according to those dated, oppressive, white, male-dominated “socio-cultural” norms); they never sought . . . hatred for women.  But that’s what the leftists today are all about.  Hating women who don’t fit their mold (those obsolete, male-dominated molds are so oppressive), and trying to force them into that mold, oblivious–as always–to their own totalitarian oppression.

I’m sick of it.  Sick. Of. It.

When Scott Brown was running for Senate (for Ted Kennedy’s, aka “The People’s Seat”), I saw again–and this is not at all unusual among “feminists”–the same wrong-headed craziness, lack of logic/critical thinking skills, and plain old-fashioned bullying.  Some group, whose founder I actually like (she’s nuts, but in a way that you can respect), said that “we” needed to vote for Croakley because . . . she’s female. Seriously.  Of course, as I pointed out to them, this vaginal consideration did not extend to Sarah. Or any other conservative.  Just liberal women have acceptable vaginas, apparently.

To femisogynists I say, screw you.  We have your number; you don’t give a crap about women, never have, never will. You diminish and disparage women who don’t fit your mold, whom you believe to be . . . what? Gender traitors? You’re laughable and shallow and useless.  But then, vesting your entire existence on an anti-intellectual “treatise” would lead to embarrassing failure.  Try reading something not grounded in Marx.  Really, try it–that’s quite the challenge at any college or university.

My Enemy’s Enemy is My Friend?

I’ve been thinking about this off and on since the HillBuzz post thanking President and Laura Bush, and the ever-widening gulf between the far left and this administration is causing me to revisit the idea that we on the right should make an effort to understand the left’s growing dissatisfaction with BO and his traitorous horde and through our understanding work with some of their less-crazy talking points.  Now before you argue that lefty loons have no less-crazy talking points, and I was stunned to discover this, too, consider the issues of women’s health, BO’s constant lies and false promises, and his incompetence in handling our nation’s security.  

As a woman, I am very interested in and am angry about the way that the proposed healthcare will affect women’s access to vital preventative procedures and screening.  Now, obviously, we and the far left are galaxies apart when it comes to taxpayer-funded abortion, no way to work with that. However, there are some rumblings on the left about the mammogram “recommendations” (don’t get them even though they save lives, heck! don’t even do self-exams, who needs breasts or . . . life, anyway?) and the pap recommendations (granted, these don’t seem as ominous, but who knows what’s next?  Creep the age up to 30? 35?  50?).  I’ve been quite alarmed that the supposed feminist party is actively working to limit and minimize women’s health (while paying lip service, of course, to their commitment to it–look at what they DO, not what they say.  What good is having insurance that’s as inexpensive as a man’s if you get the same care that a man gets?  No mammograms, no pap smears. But hey, maybe they’ll talk to us about our ED and prescribe us some Viagra?).  And guess what?! The lefties are upset about this, too.

Amy Siskind, writing for HuffPo, has written an article (somewhat bizarrely called “Save us Martha!“–like that political puppet will do anything but what she is told to do) that highlights the left’s concerns about women’s health and the way that this administration is jeopardizing it (h/t Legal Insurrection).  Granted, we’re coming at this topic from different angles: conservatives don’t want the government involved in healthcare decisions, dems do; conservatives don’t want to be forced to pay for elective abortions, dems do.  But that aside, the defeat of this healthcare monstrosity, and of BO, will depend on both progs and conservatives opposing it.  And oppose it, we do.  Republican leaders would do well to pay attention to what the far left is saying about women’s health.

They’d also learn a thing a two by listening to the left’s increasing disenchantment with their messiah.  Yep, it’s out there, and it’s growing.  They can’t believe that he’s upping the stakes in Afghanistan.  This topic is one that I think best illustrates the left’s bizarre ability to approve of a lack of principles  . . . when it suits them.  According to them, BO was pandering to the center when he was talking boldly about Afghanistan.  You know, lying.  That’s okay, though, because they knew the truth.  They knew he was an America-hating pacifist who shared their views.  Oops, he’s sending more troops to Afghanistan, granted he took forever to decide to do it and did so in a weak as water way, but they’re going.  Now the left feels all hurt and sad that they were lied to (rather than the lies being told to the center/right, which is A-OK in their book).  Uh-huh.  But this is a good thing, because that disillusionment has forced them to hear the rest of the lies, or at least one or two.

The left is pushing, maybe not as hard as the right but they are pushing, for the “transparency” we were all promised with regard to the healthcare debates, and the left is showing intense regret, too, regarding the Cadillac tax lies.  This is good.  The more they see the lies, the more they will resist his leadership.  Okay, okay, they want universal healthcare, they want socialism, and it  may be rather dangerous to align ourselves too closely with them (kind of like providing arms to foreign radicals who then turn around and use them against us.  We do that.  A lot.  Something that BO should probably consider, too, as he moves forward with his plans to establish a “civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded” as the military.  Bummer if that turns against him at some point.), but still, it’s not a bad thing that they are moving away from the koolaid fountain and starting to wonder about what they’ve inflicted on us.

And wonder they are.  I was over at Pundit & Pundette yesterday, reading Jill’s great article about Maureen Dowd’s take on BO’s ridiculous speech last week about the war on terror he’s just declared for the first time ever.  Oh how I laughed.  Say what you will about Dowd, but she’s got snark down to a science.  What she hasn’t mastered yet is the “wow conclusion” . . . or perhaps it’s just that her readers are rather limited and can’t remember the actual gist of the article? . . . because most of the comments to that otherwise insightful piece were about her bizarre declaration that BO should be our “father,” “that he misses the moment to be president — to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders, who reassures and instructs the public at traumatic moments.”  Uh-huh.  No idea what the hell she’s talking about there, maybe she’s morphing the idea of the “founding fathers” with some idea of “Father Christmas”?

Who knows.  But the comments, as always as interesting as any liberal post, are telling.  They express tentative support for BO . . . on the grounds that he’s not President Bush.  While we on the right dislike this, think about it.  They aren’t singing his praises on his merits (there are none), and they aren’t defending him because they are passionate about (or even lukewarm about) his ideology, methodology, or “leadership.”  They are saying that he’s not President Bush and therefore he’s good enough for them.  Well, well, well.  If all you’ve got to say about your president is that he’s better than the last one . . . you don’t have much.  In fact, you pretty much have nothing.

And it’s certainly not the resounding chorus of blind and deaf hopeandchangers that we became accustomed to prior to November, 2008.  There are no, he’s the best president ever, with his leadership, we will save the world, and I pledge to be a servant to him (okay, I hammer that Demi Moore vid, but ICK!) . . . nope.  Nothing about him at all.  It’s more like, yeah, well, um,  . . . er, he’s better than Bush.  So there!

Watch out, BO, when your dedicated followers can’t find anything to say in your defense, on your own merits, you’re in big big trouble.  And we on the right should pay attention.  It’s GOOD that they keep bashing Bush.  It’s all they have.  They can’t support BO because of his “leadership” or his policies or accomplishments (one snarky HuffPo writer announces BO’s push for a second Nobel for bombing Iran, heh), so they keep on about President Bush.  It’s the beginning of year two.  How long before they start looking for another person who’s “not Bush” AND who offers them something more than that?