"The inefficiency of government cannot be addressed through an elaboration of government." - David MametOk, this could get long. Here's another (remembering that Mamet himself is a reformed liberal).
"The struggle of the left to rationalize its positions is an intolerable, Sysiphean burden."This after he relates the story of a friend who ran into an elder woman of the Left and asked her advice on some question of Liberal Doctrine, and the answer came back, "Contact MoveOn.org, and do whatever they say."
That, my friends, is religion.
As a matter of fact, the short six pages in "The Secret Knowledge", Chapter 21 -- "Rumpelstiltskin" may just be the most brilliant analysis of the culture of the left ever written.
Sorry, here's more. This one elicited a whoooaaaahhhhh!!! of approval from me:
"Greed is a sin. It is mentioned in the Ten Commandments, where it is called covetousness, which is to say the wish for that which another possesses. As such it is allied to envy and resentment.
But there is a nonsinful wish for more, and it is called ambition."
---
"The purpose of religion and morality is to limit [these] corrosive influences on the mind and soul. The purpose of law is to control the destructive actions which spring therefrom."
7 comments:
"Greed is a sin. It is mentioned in the Ten Commandments, where it is called covetousness, which is to say they wish for that which another possesses. As such it is allied to envy and resentment.
But there is a nonsinful wish for more, and it is called ambition."
Don't know what else is in that book but one could make the argument that the entire liberal agenda is built araound greed.
Class warfare is the bases for their economic policy.
They lament the corporate CEO who amasses millions, making jobs and millionaires in his wake. The richer he gets the more evil he becomes. The left looks at him and says what a greedy SOB.
But what character trait is it inside of a person that looks at him and says, "He's making too much money." Greed, or what the Ten Commandments calls covetousness.
Or... envy.
Whitehawk nails it there.
Yes, he does bring that up. It's a very insightful book.
Thanks Nightfly. I had this same conversation with a liberal friend about a month ago. He lamented how the rich were getting richer and fewer wealthy individuals were controling more and more capital. I asked him how do you know when someone is too rich? Who decides that? And what is it that makes one want to decide that? He has bought into the class warfare playbook.
I told him I wanted American rich people to be the richest rich people in the world. That would be a good thing. Rich people being rich doesn't make me poorer. In fact I would like them to have one of my business cards. They take great care of their pets. (I'm a vet.)
He moved on in the conversation without answering. He is a great friend but he just can't see it.
I've been there, Whitehawk. I'm the apostate righty in a family full of Kennedy-era Democrats. We're all in perfect agreement until it comes to solutions. Theirs inevitably starts with someone making a law, restriction, regulation, prohibition, rule, or tax. In vain do I reply that it never ends there.
It's curious... they almost remind me of one of the ghosts in CS Lewis' "Great Divorce," who wants her child to be happy happy happy - but only on her own terms, from what she alone can provide him. That he is in Heaven and in perfect bliss while she is a refugee from Hell entirely escapes her notice. He must be with her, down there, at all costs, so she can "take care of him."
And while I try to shy away from Heaven/Hell metaphors when talking about politics - kind of a subset of Godwin's Law - in this case it's apt. The Left regards itself with the devotion of a cult promising Heaven on Earth, if only we'll shut up and quit insisting on our own happiness. That's why they're so snide about "eating our peas" and such.
I enjoyed & respected this book, but it did have a few howlers in it. I think he must have taken his experience with showbiz parasites and projected it onto the whole rest of the country, in some cases. I mean, liberals don't have real jobs? Where did all those labor unions come from, then?
Well, most of them are government labor unions. I think only about 7% of the private work force is union.
And I think by "real job" he means one where poor or even mediocre performance might cost you yours. Unions themselves are designed to keep that from happening, ESPECIALLY government ones.
And it's not like NO liberals have "real jobs". It's a generalization. We all get that.
Your core liberal democrat voter makes up about 25% of the voters. Since a large portion of them have been "activist-ized" they probably represent a bit less than that of the general population. But you wouldn't know that, because liberals like going into the media, and the academic world which the media quotes. So most things we get on TV and in movies have been filtered by their perspective. Often unintentionally, I know. But often very intentionally as well. So it looks like there are more of them than there are.
I think about, what, 30-40% consider themselves "conservative" in polls. Which means it's all about swaying those people in between, most of whom are probably fairly common-sensical, but don't have a lot of time to keep up with things because they're too busy working and paying bills raising kids and generally trying to persue happiness. Which I totally understand.
At any rate, that's my take on the "real jobs" thing.
Post a Comment