Thursday, December 15, 2016

How to Help an In-denial Liberal

I had dinner last night with a retired Pentagon colonel, and we had a delicious tour d'horizon. But then the colonel went on to tell the liberal woman next to me exactly what we had discussed for the previous hour. And, you can imagine, she didn't like it.

I was impressed that he was willing to spend his time watering such a water-resistant plant. Basically, I don't try to persuade liberals; I always assume that they are beyond an intersubjective discussion of the issues. Rather like the woman whose husband had voted for Trump. She still insisted that "Democrats want to help people." Yes, but what if the "help" doesn't help? "I don't want to talk about that."

So that's why I don't tend to talk politics to people that I profile as liberals. What's the point?

Anyway, everything I write and think is calculated to cause a little tremor to a liberal's NPR/NYT bubble. My reductive Three Peoples theory is intended to show liberals that they need to think about people who are not cut out to be world-historical creative people. My little darlings concept is designed to show liberals that their Patron/Client politics damages the people they pretend to help, and then devastates the little darlings when liberals dump the old little darlings for fresh new faces.

But I think I need a new concept to round out my world view. How about Five Lefty Fallacies?
  1. The Marxian fallacy: capitalism will immiserate the workers.
  2. The socialist fallacy: socialism can't work because it can't compute prices.
  3. The administrative fallacy: big government can't work because bureaucrats can't outthink millions of consumers.
  4. The regulatory fallacy: regulation can't work because the regulated always "capture" the regulators.
  5. The reform fallacy: government can't reform its programs because it cannot cut spending.
I think this needs a little expansion; I've been writing about it for a while and now I need to formalize it and add in the arguments.

But the Big Idea of the modern era, I think, is to "hurl" the proletariat off the plantation, and its feudal relations, and teach ordinary people how to live as responsible persons rather than subordinates. The whole narrative of the left has been to keep the people in their subordinate peasanthood and workerdom, rather than encourage them to enter the world of responsibility and self-ownership.

In my discussions with the Pentagon colonel he stated that the failure of the ruling class was that it had failed to protect great groups of people, who now felt "unprotected."

It is, of course, the one-and-only job of government to provide a regime of peace and protect its people from enemies foreign and domestic. But because every government is an armed minority that occupies territory and taxes the inhabitants thereof to be able to reward its supporters, every ruling class tends to forget what it is really there for. It thinks about nothing but rewarding its supporters and so licenses its supporters to prey on the other inhabitants, because one of the rewards of supporting a ruling class is to be able to wield power in your own little world. Then the ruling class is shocked that the other inhabitants start to think that the government does nothing for them except prey upon them.

But I don't think that the average liberal is within a country mile of understanding this. Anyway, our liberal friends are not really out of the first and second stages of grief after the Trump election. Not yet.

No comments:

Post a Comment