The Anger Of The Left

[392cobra]

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.

[cobra de capell]

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.

[Commander]

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".

[Fox]

How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans?

Ever been to an abortion rally?

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.

Hmmm... "Axis of evil"

However, the question here is not why the left has different arguments, but why there is such 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.

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

[Ron61]

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

[trularin]

Interesting.

[Commander]

Originally Posted by Ron61

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

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.

[Ron61]

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.

Ron

[wtm442]

Originally Posted by Commander

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

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).

[trularin]

This thread is getting ugly quickly.

[petek]

(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.

[Commander]

Originally Posted by petek

(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.

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.

[Ron61]

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

[Cobrabill]

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.

[J. T. Toad]

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.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Commander

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".

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.

[dblbarrel]

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.

[Mark Husar]

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.

[Jamo]

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.

[Commander]

Originally Posted by Jamo

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.

Originally Posted by Jamo

A brother-in-law is someone you're going to have to be around for a few years. Make him feel like an idiot now and you've invested in years of pleasure during the holidays.

bnewell

The F-707 has autofocus--some idiot shut it off in order to learn the camera....still learning......

You unmitigated ass. I specifically chose not to have a CSX number--not because of SAI or its product. Rather, I chose the Family Kirkham.

With all due respect to Marsh and the other fine folks at SAI, what idiot promoted you from the depths of hell to run SAI into the ground with your obviously assinine inability to grasp even the most elementary elements of good business judgement?

I will read your proffered stupidity with joy, knowing that it will provide me with unlimited opportunities to point out your failings as anything more than a dimwitted dung beetle, forever lost due to being attracted only to the aroma of its own waste producing orifice.

Bud's $.02 is worth millions...

The person you talked to is a freeking idiot government moron that our tax dollars are being wasted on. He/she should get the hell off the planet. I have no patience for government folks that are stupid.

Originally Posted by 392Cobra

The grinning idiot clinging to Je$$e Jack$on is Cindy Sheehan... the sob sister protesting the war at Bush's ranch, who lost her son in the war, the same son she gave up in her divorce when he was 7 years old.

And by the way if you wonder why she has so much free time ... she is going through another divorce right now and guess what? She is giving up custody of another son.

As Forest Gump once wisely proclaimed, "Stupid is as stupid does."

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:

Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ahy/index.html

In response to Cheney, Leahy reminded Cheney that the vice president had once accused him of being a bad Catholic, to which Cheney replied either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."

I think it is unfortunate that Cheney has to continue to attack Leahy and stand by his conduct instead of remembering the location and role from which his verbal attack came from. It was unbecoming. It would be forgivable. Unfortunately Cheney is defending himself instead of apologizing.

This is just in line with the kind trash-talking macho crap that the chickenhawk frat boys of this Administration spew with disgusting frequency. This is par for the course. It was during the last election that Dubya was overhead saying to Cheney that a reporter from the New York Times was an euphemism for the human rectum.

When you add Cheney's churlish refusal to apologize for his potty-mouth, it only reinforces the notion that he really does live up to his first name.

This is just another example of how Bush (through his administration) fails at being a uniter not a divider. Not that they ever really had anyone fooled. Maybe this is how they think changing the discourse is done...it's changing it all right.

It's not his cursing that really riles me, it's his arrogant response to being called on it. He is now saying his comment was 'long overdue' and that he 'felt better' for saying it. He also seems to be under the impression that a lot of people who heard him agreed with what he said. Is he trying to look like an unprofessional jerk or does it just come natural?

It seems to me that Leahy was performing his role as a Senator in asking for an investigation into the connections between Cheney and Halliburton,. In fact, the fact that Cheney had the audacity to try confront Leahy on this issue shows how involved he does get on behalf of Halliburton.

Cheney still receives income from Halliburton. There is evidence that he got directly involved with decisions about the awarding of contracts to Halliburton, contrary to prior claims. Halliburton has not acted very well in its contracts in Iraq and has repeatedly shown up in the news.

Cheney should be staying away from this issue with a 10 foot pole instead of appearing to be attacking a member of the Senate (he is the presiding official over this body) who raised some legitimate concerns. But somehow in all this Leahy is to blame.

This was not a personal attack on the character of Cheney, it was a call for an investigation of allegations of improper conduct. Instead of letting the process and political system work and keep an air of professionalism, Cheney verbally attacked Leahy for trying to shake the President of the Senates hand on the day of the Senate photo. Leahy was acting as a Senator should in this situation. Cheney would have been childish for refusing to shake his hand. Trying to bully Leahy was inappropriate. Leahy is not the issue here.

The question now is will his boss---George W. Bush, the man who promised to bring a new tone to Washington---chasten his second-in-command for his intemperate and impolite language?

June 17, 2004. Vice President Cheney talking to CNBC's Gloria Borger.

Borger: "Well, let's go to Mohamed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.' "

Cheney: "No, I never said that."

Borger: "Okay."

Cheney: "Never said that."

Borger: "I think that is . . . "

Cheney: "Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down."

On Dec. 9, 2001. Cheney talking to NBC's Tim Russert.

Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

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.