The Anger Of The Left
 

The Anger Of The Left

By Thomas Sowell


That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.

Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?

The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.

There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger.

All sorts of people can have all sorts of beliefs about what tax rates are best from various points of view. But how can people work themselves into a lather over the fact that some taxpayers are able to keep more of the money they earned, instead of turning it over to politicians to dispense in ways calculated to get themselves re-elected?

The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are in fact tax cuts for the economy.

Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.

A highly regarded economist once observed that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," so that sometimes "a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."

Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.

Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes' statement — the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April.

Budget deficits have often resulted from runaway spending but seldom from reduced tax rates.

Those on the other side may have different arguments. However, the question here is not why the left has different arguments, but why there is such anger.

Often it is an exercise in futility even to seek to find a principle behind the anger. For example, the left's obsession with the high incomes of corporate executives never seems to extend to equally high — or higher — incomes of professional athletes, entertainers, or best-selling authors like Danielle Steel.

If the reason for the anger is a feeling that corporate CEOs are overpaid for their contributions, then there should be even more anger at people who get even more money for doing absolutely nothing, because they have inherited fortunes.

Yet how often has the left gotten worked up into high dudgeon over those who inherited the Rockefeller, Roosevelt or Kennedy fortunes? Even spoiled heirs like Paris Hilton don't really seem to set them off.

If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude.

Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on.
It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders.

Right on the money!

Watching the anger play out on TV - it's as if all they have is anger, every single person on the left is angery, hates W, but expresses no ideas that would counter what is being done now. I just don't see that on the right - no anger is expressed, only re-statements of ideas and hope.

It's going to be scary is Hillary wins.

I would just like to calmly say, that you sir, are an idiot.

And that anyone who feels that they are either right, or left of center, and represent the correct viewpoint(s), is delusional.

The vast majority of people live in the center and outlying viewpoints by definition are not normal.

Calling all extremists, left and right: "join us in the middle".

Ever been to an abortion rally?

Hmmm... "Axis of evil"

:LOL:

Two words regarding a nutty Right obsession... Tinkie-Winkie


I am not saying that the leftist position is correct... but I do think that you need new glasses, yours are clouded.

Commander nailed it.

-John

:)

Commander,

I am neither radically left or right, but would you sir be kind enough to explain just what the Correct view point is since it seems the center must have the only correct view point I would like to know what it is. I have no clue as to what could straighten out the mess this country is in now, but I seriously doubt if we who are in the Center could do it much better than the left and right have as things are so messed up now, it is impossible to have any view point that doesn't offend someone as it isn't politically correct.

Ron :)

Interesting.

:D

The center is where you don't ask whether the answer is coming from the right or left. It is where everyone is, where everyone starts from, and where everyone comes to an agreement in.

When you start any discussion with determining if the other people in the discussion are "right" or "left", then you're not discussing, you're starting an argument.

:)

Commander,

Most of what you said I agree with but I don't see how you can have any discussion about anything where everyone is going to agree, and if that was the case then nothing would ever get accomplished. As I stated, I neither care for the radical left or right, but even in the center some have to be right and some have to be wrong. The right to disagree and argue about something in a reasonable manner is the only way anything can be accomplished. Otherwise you don't have a neutral center, you have a dictatorship. Just as an example I am sure that you will consider this post as starting an argument, but it isn't meant to. :rolleyes:

Ron ;)

Commander ... can I suggest that you get a mirror? There is no such thing as THE correct viewpoint. Also, Fred (original thread starter) made no comment whether he was in agreement or against the comments made by Thomas Sowell.

Fred is my kind of idiot, one of the best in Texas (except for that damn ugly frog). :JEKYLHYDE :JEKYLHYDE :JEKYLHYDE

This thread is getting ugly quickly.

(I told myself I wouldn't get drawn into these discussions, but I simply can't resist this time...)

Commander, you're so angry... you must be a leftist. :LOL:

You know me sooo well. But maybe I'm a rightist? So far right that I've gone around to left? Bury me under the very center of the bell curve and let the extremists from both sides start tossing the bombs. Just me and my immediate fellows will be left and we'll all get along happily ever after. The meek WILL inherit the earth. :LOL:

:(

I'm out. I should have know better than to post in any thread like this. I apologize to any that I have offended but I just don't understand the basic theme of this thread at all.

Ron :confused:

same ol,same ol
 

Ron,not to worry.It's just the typical liberal tatic of deflecting the topic at hand so hard that it is no longer recognizable.:(

aw heck, Ron I'll jump in

The fall of our society is inevitable. It is closer than what the 'bell curve' can recognize. We have all heard the quote of what would happen if had had a 'democracy' (aka bell curve of the masses).

This is a present day HISTORY lesson, of which is being repeat.

viva la revolucion!

Although this article is probably lacking 'equal-time' arguments on any side, drawing first blood of labeling idiots from a quoted article is just as likely to necessitate some self examination of glasses cleaning and an excellent example of what the article is trying to expose.

Commander - who are you calling an idiot and why? Is the center smoking something? It's the center that is the problem as they cannot decide one way or another on any issue.

It is my opinion that people who claim to be in the middle have no real beliefs.
Just what they read in the paper.
Left or right I can respect honest differences of opinion.
May disagree, but respect.
Compromise is for losers.

Commander,
I can appreciate the statement made by 392, but not necessarily agree with him. Your statement, on the other hand, starts out with an insult meant to belittle and insult 392. By calling him an "idiot" to somehow lend credibility to your supposed superior intelligence you self label yourself as a self rightous ass.

Commander

The "idiot" remark (which I just saw) has put you on double super secret probation. Come even remotely close to something like that again and you'll be standing in the corner.

Thank you for your expected cooperation.

And lest we forget the original point of this thread, anger of the left and all, not to mention someone up above brought in obfuscation as a means of diffusing a debate:

Whatever.

Like the right is any better than the left when they're trying to advance their cause, trying to draw people from the outer fringes of the middle.