In general, liberals are not stupid; many of them just have bad luck when they think. This cannot be said of California liberals.
Recently I have encountered a literal flood of observations and events that provide more insight into the workings of the now-dominant national liberal mind. This small compilation is by no means comprehensive.
Meanwhile, the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute advises us that the Republican plan to cap deductions at $50K would raise $750B over the same interval, and decreasing the cap to $25K would raise $1.4T – all without raising tax rates. It is clear that the President needs to remediate some of the arithmetic he was supposed to have learned in grade school.
But as any mildly interested American knows, the objective here is visible class punishment, no matter how many businesses it hurts and jobs that get cut and/or are not created. You see, it’s a liberal thing.
In the meantime, the striking workers’ union at Hostess are holding fast to their demands for increased compensation that is now causing the company to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy – i.e. shut down. This will remove 18,000 plus workers from the nation’s payrolls. (I’m told that somewhere there is an old law that says if a union job action causes a company to go out of business, then the newly unemployed union members do not qualify for government unemployment benefits. But that’s another matter.)
The butt stupid union leadership – liberals all – don’t understand the difference between striking a government supported oligopolist, and striking a business operating in a competitive free market. For the latter there is no slack from the dollars and cents that define the real world. But again, habitually shooting yourself in the foot, and then wondering where the shot came from is a liberal thing.
SecState Hillary, that hard-traveling statesman and diplomat, is again on the road and not available for congressional testimony on Benghazi. (One of these days we’ll do a summary of her architecture of global foreign policy failures, but not now. For an early snootful, read here.)
Apropos to that, recently unemployed CIA chief Petraeus has apparently given another version of events transpiring after 11 September 2012. It turns out that he knew from the gitgo that it was an Al Qaeda terrorist attack, and claims to have said so at the time. Moreover, it turns out that then everyone at State, FBI, White House, and maybe even MSNBC knew that the video had nothing to do with the murder of four Americans that night.
And here’s the kicker, UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s now notorious and shameful Sunday performances on national TV are excused by liberal members of Congress because the globally known attack was still being considered as “classified” information on 16 September by the WH, whose occupant today invites the media to give him their best shot, since it was he who told Rice to say what she compliantly said. No one seems to be picking up that, if the ‘still classified’ BS was in effect, then Rice could have simply demurred on that ground, and not launched a blatant fabrication to make the electorate believe the President’s lies that he had vanquished Al Qaeda.
And even more mysterious is why legislators having attended both Petraeus’ testimonies must rely on their “recollection” of the first testimony to contend that Petraeus has changed his story in the interval. Didn’t someone, like Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, have a goddam recorder going during these critically important closed door hearings? We’re now relying on fond memories of month-old conversations about what Petraeus said?!! Must again be a liberal thing.
Finally, a true insight into liberal thinking, that re-surfaces as regularly as the sunrise, is the gross misunderstanding of how individual liberty and social equality are strongly linked. Astute political philosophers have pointed out for more than two centuries that those two notions, or attributes of governance, are inversely related – you cannot increase both concurrently, raising one inevitably lowers the other.
Yet this almost tautological truth is not accessible to a mind embarked on the now much-traveled liberal road. In order to sell the unread on the benefits of collectivism, the liberal must constantly dredge up and re-decorate his rhetoric with the great propagandist bamboozle of the French revolution – ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité!’ – that formed the foundation of the modern miscreation called socialism. To demonstrate the strength and spread of this myopism, I was recently saddened to see an otherwise rational RR reader succumb to this most liberal of tenets.