Why Government Can't Be Trusted With Entitlements

The iconic job of governments is to fight wars of national defense. It's a short term thing, and the government commandeers all the resources of the nation, by taxation, inflation, debt to fight the war.

Then the war is over and the nation is saddled with the debt and the taxes and the inflated money supply. Time, as they used to say, for retrenchment.

But now government uses the tools of national mobilization to give seniors pensions and health care, to educate youngsters, and to relieve the poor.

I say this is wrong: morally, epistemologically, and logically. It is especially wrong to inflate the currency and increase the debt to pay for current programs.

First, the moral objection. The care of ageing parents is the responsibility of children. It is a moral horror to shift the burden of caring for the aged onto other peoples' children. It is a moral horror for middle-class people to shift the relief of the poor onto government functionaries. We should be relieving the poor and making the age-old distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor as iconically represented by the drunkard dustman Alfred P. Doolittle. It is a moral horror to have government functionaries educating children in government child-custodial facilities. Instead, children should be educated by their parents in a collective effort among all the neighborhood parents -- and that usually means the neighborhood mothers.

OK, maybe we could have a government program to educate the children of illiterate parents, although I would much prefer the approach of the Catholic Church, and other voluntary approaches that might even include the assistance of billionaires.

Government is force. Are we moderns so depraved that we will not look after our ageing parents or relieve the poor or educate our children unless under the lash of government compulsion? I hope not.

Then there is the mal-appropriation of financial instruments for use by government. For instance, debt in the private sector is the loan of money usually backed by the commitment of collateral in case of failure to pay. Thus a car loan or a home mortgage is guaranteed by the use of the car or home as collateral. The car or home is seized by the creditor in case of non-payment. In the case of corporate debt, the bondholders have the power, specified in the bond covenant, to seize corporate assets in the case of failure to service the loan.

But this is impossible in the case of a government. For government is sovereign; it pays what it chooses, and the devil take the hindmost. Of course, it is usually foolish of a government not to pay on its obligations. But plenty of governments get away with it.

The basic situation of government is that it bets the nation as collateral when it runs up government debt. This makes sense in the case of a war, except that the government should really issue equity rather than debt to finance wars. But if you look at the US's federal debt, now north of $22 trillion, it is really playing poker with our money. Hey, I got your money, sucker! What yer goin' to do about it?

All these entitlement programs are also wrong from a logical standpoint. Governments cannot legally bind themselves -- or the entitlement beneficiaries -- the way that the law allows for private pensions and health care. In other words, if I sign up for a private pension scheme I have a contractual obligation with the corporation offering the scheme, and that puts burdens both on me and the corporation. What happens if I can't make the payments in the future? What happens if there is a great recession? What happens if the climate changes? What happens is that my pension provider and I make prudent adjustments to our mutual obligations. And the one thing that cannot be guaranteed is a fixed pension thirty years into the future. But government? It can change the law any time it wants. Thus every government entitlement program is not what it advertises, a "social insurance" program. It is simply government paying off its supporters with the cover of decent draperies. And, of course, with future pensions and health care "guaranteed" to the voters, the whole thing depends on the ability of the government to apply force in future years to make good its promises.

It really is astonishing how much faith people have in government. I suppose it is a faith in force, a natural human instinct to solve intractable problems by the magic of binding other people to obligations to look after us, and to punish them if they offend us.

I just want us to be better than that.

Solving the National Debt Problem

What are we going to do about the National Debt? Right now, the US Federal Debt is about 100 percent of GDP. Back before the Crash of 2008 it was about 60 percent of GDP.

And that's not really the whole story, because Social Security and Medicare have unfunded liabilities estimated at $50 trillion on up. $50 trillion is about 250 percent of GDP right now.

And then, bless her heart, AOC wants to spend $90 trillion on the Green New Deal; that's 450 percent of GDP.

Actually, national debt at over 100 percent of GDP is not that scandalous. US Federal Debt went up to 120 percent in World War II.

And then it went down.

The Brits took their national debt above 250 percent of GDP twice. The first time was at the end of the Napoleonic Wars; the second time was at the end of World War II. No problem -- if you win the war!

Running the federal debt up to 120 percent of GDP in World War II worked because the US ruling class of the the 1940s decided to go fight the war, and then after the war inflated and/or ran surpluses until they got the debt down. The ruling class was more or less united on all this, so The People didn't really have a voice as to whether they wanted to go to war, or whether in the aftermath they wanted more spending on programs or to drive down the debt as a percent of GDP. The ruling class decided for them.

But, in the 1970s, the ruling class split. The lefty side had started the Great Society in the 1960s to use government spending on programs and wanted that to continue, and the righty side wanted to cut tax rates but knew they could never persuade the American people to cut spending. It's been that way ever since.

Then we had the generational financial Crash of 2008, when the federal debt doubled as a percent of GDP. If you read books like This Time is Different by Reinhart and Rogoff they will tell you that this doubling of national debt in in the aftermath of an economic meltdown is typical.

But what do we do about the debt? I argue that if the ruling class is united it will pay down the national debt. If it is divided then it won't.

This makes sense, because if a united ruling class keeps the debt down then they keep the people fat and happy. But if the ruling class is divided and things start to go wrong, as they might when the state's finances are stressed by high levels of government debt, then there is always the possibility of revolution and riots in the streets.

Not good. For the ruling class or anyone else.

But why is the ruling class divided today? It is divided because one part of the ruling class has supporters that expect rewards in the form of government spending, and because another part of the ruling class has supporters that expect rewards in the form of tax cuts. And right now there is a standoff.

So really, the debt problem is really a symptom of a bigger problem, that the American people are divided on the question of spending and taxes. And really there is no solution until the rubber hits the road in inflation and/or debt default. That's because no red-blooded American right now is about to agree to cuts in spending on his Social Security or her Medicare. And no Republican can run for president without promising tax cuts.

So it will have to get worse, so that people have bigger things to worry about than their government checks or their tax bill.

Only then will our ruling class "do something" about the debt.

But note this: The Canadian Liberal government Did Something about the debt in the 1990s -- and got shut out of power for a couple of decades. The German Social Democratic government liberalized labor-market rules in the 2000s, and the SDP is now close to being the third largest party in Germany.

If you do the right thing, the voters will probably punish you at the ballot box. But at least you did the right thing.

Lefty Politics is One Way Politics

Apart from its out-of-this-world foolishness, the thing that strikes me about the Green New Deal is its simple-minded focus on The Future.

But what about life in the present, greenies? How about we fix a few things right here in the Present before we blunder into the Future?

Let's see. The latest guesstimate on the cost of the Green New Deal is something north of $90 trillion. With 2018 GDP at $20 trillion, that means that the Green New Deal is going to cost almost 5 times the current GDP.

Hey, GNDers, before we spend 5x GDPs on the Green New Deal, how about we fix a few programs here at home?

I mean, Social Security and Medicare have a $50 trillion unfunded liability. At least. Then there is the wasteland of K-12 government education. How about we Do Something about that before saving the planet? For the Children.

But that is the curious nature of millennial cults. They do not give a thought for life down here on Earth. They direct the attention of their members to the Heavenly Future. Indeed, anyone that dares take a backward glance better watch out.

It seems to me that this Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative approach to life is necessary when you are sending people out to get killed, as just before a battle. You need this if you are Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt. You need it if you are preaching to the dullards on the Sawdust Trail. You need it when you are Gen. Patton giving a pep talk to the troops before the race to the Rhine.

You need it when you back is up against the wall. And obviously, if we humans are programmed to respond to the Call to Arms, the instinct is there for a reason.

That is why the climate change movement presents the issue of climate in apocalyptic terms. Because if our backs are not against the wall, if a degree or two of warming is not catastrophic, then we can all go about our business, and what will the climate-istas do then poor things?

OK. I know. They will gin up some other crisis for which We Must Act Now!

Every generation of the left is selling some version of the existential crisis for which We Must Act Now and for which we must give up our freedom, because The Cause.

But most of life is not the Do or Die breakout of a cornered rat. Most of life is social, dealing with other people, and the key thing about that, as Kevin Williamson writes, is trust.

Who do you trust? Even if you are just, like Kevin, looking for a dog-sitter for your dachshund. I mean, you are not just giving up your house keys to anyone!

One of the key developments of the Great Enrichment of the last 200 years is the expansion of trust beyond "people who are related to us, who are known to us, and who are demographically similar to us." In fact today we are perfectly happy to trust strangers as long as they pay with a credit card, or have a high star rating on Ebay or Uber.

This expansion of trust, that we all take for granted, is astonishing and miraculous.

Notice that our politician friends are in the business of drawing lines where trust is concerned. You can't trust the Commies, for one side, and you can't trust Trump, on the other side. You need to teach people not to trust Commies if you are going to wage a Cold War; you need to paint Donald Trump as a racist hater if you want to keep your liberal base all riled up.

So I look upon lefty activists that want to enlist us in their eternal moral equivalents of war as One Way people. There is only One Truth. One Way: Our Way. And anyone that thinks different is evil, a racist sexist homophobe and a hater.

I get it, that in the old days, when each human community was a tribe or a village of the kindred, the only people to trust were close blood relatives. And the community had to be ready to arm up in an instant to repel the young men from the neighboring tribe or village if they decided on a dawn raid on our village.

But if you can expand trust, and teach everyone that trust can work for them, then you can get to USA today, where people routinely trust strangers and deal pleasantly with everyone they meet, and we are all rich beyond the dreams of avarice of kings and emperors.

But the activists can still teach us to hate each other on election day. And they probably always will.

We Must Understand that the Left is a Group of Religious Cults

Back in the day the Founders made it clear that their constitutional framework was designed to deal with "faction," the natural and tribal instinct for humans to divide into factions and squabble with each other. Says Jay Cost:

As Madison argued, the purpose of a “well constructed Union” is to “break and control the violence of faction.” Our political system is currently less capable of this than Madison wanted.

Of course this implies that chaps like Madison get to make the rules and have the moral stature to preside over the factions and setting the rules so that their ability to cause damage is reduced to a dull roar.

Madison & Co. were living in the aftermath of the "religious wars" between Protestantism and Catholicism that were suspended by the spirit of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. We could say, I suppose, that the ruling class of the time had developed some sort of a gentleman's agreement that they would not rile up their factions with the nuclear fuel of religious fanaticism, and instead would act together to soften the hard edges of factional conflict.

But then the whole thing blew up in the fanaticism of the French Revolution. This was a new departure, because the New Fanaticism was not strictly religious, a battle between religious sects, but the fanaticism of a secular political faction, the Jacobins, that was battling against:_ what exactly? The ancien régime? the Girondist moderates? You tell me. And, at the height of the Reign of Terror, the Jacobins had turned the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris into a Temple of Reason. So, was the Jacobin terror the eruption of a religious cult devoted to the worship of Reason?

And then, with Marx and Engels a new secular religion was born, Socialism. What has to be understood is that socialism was not then and is not now merely a "faction." It is a religion, whose devotees are committed to bringing heaven on earth with the creation of the society of true equality.

So when former Vice President Joe Biden called Vice President Mike Pence "a good guy," Jay Cost gets to mourn that he was quickly corrected by an LGBT activist, actress Cynthia Nixon, of the TV show Sex and the City.

Of course he was, because the left's various groups are not "factions" in the sense understood by Madison and the founders but secular religious cults. Each of them professes a "true religion" in the sense that Voltaire took apart in his critique of Pascal's Pensées in his Letters on England. Obviously, if the gay movement is a "true religion" then there can be no compromise with a faithful Christian like Mike Pence, the guy famous for never dining with a woman alone.

Or rather, the fact that gay activists treat practical politician Mike Pence as Satan himself tells us that gays are not a political faction but a religious cult.

This point is crucial. If the post-WWII conservative movement has failed, and I think it has, the reason is that it treated the left as an opposing political faction and not a religious movement pursuing a saving truth.

It doesn't end there. In "Pigs on Two Legs Turn on Each Other" Victor Davis Hanson comments on lesbian tennis great Martina Navratilova getting reamed for objecting to transgenders competing in women's sports.

Navratilova had the temerity to suggest that one’s sex is biologically determined. In other words, transgenderism, even with the imprimatur of the social and biological sciences, cannot trump our innate genetic codes.

That is the way with religious cults. When each is possessed of the saving truth, it stands to reason that the cult next door is flat-out wrong, and should be damned to hell when its error-riddled orthodoxy conflicts with my saving truth.

The reason that the Progressives of a century ago advanced their notion of a "living Constitution" was that the Founders' notion of "faction" as the playground fights of schoolchildren to be judiciously put down by the adults in the room was no longer accepted by the new ruling class.

The ruling class of the Progressive era, like our ruling class today, believed in the ability of politics to bring on a just society, not just to legislate against injustice when and if it reared its ugly head. Politics was not just a necessary evil, but a vehicle for a better society. As William James proposed in his landmark essay announcing the end of war in 1906, we would now need to base our politics on "The Moral Equivalent of War."

Well, Bill old chap, the moral equivalent of war is the mashup of religion and politics. That's what the Thirty Years War was all about, and that is what the Jacobins were all about, and that is what the Bolshevik Revolution was all about. One hundred million dead, old chap.

The fundamental thing that we normals must understand is that the Left is not a political faction. It is a congeries of secular religious sects, for each of whom their secular religious faith is a matter of life and death.

Wouldn't it be fun if the reprobate Donald Trump is the guy to puncture the left's hot-air balloon of secular religious bigotry and hate.

Everyone Wants to Legislate Morality

Back in the day, liberals opposed middle-class morality by opposing the notion of legislators "legislating morality." Today they are busily legislating their own morality, as in born-alive abortion bills in the liberal states, and non-gendered bathrooms, and diversity and inclusion.

The truth is that all government and all legislation amounts to "legislating morality," even laws against murder. The whole point of morality, and of laws, and of human society, is to replace the rule of power with the rule of law. And law inevitably borrows from somebody's notion of good and evil.

Back in the day, the Roman paterfamilias, the patriarch of the Roman family, had the right to rule all members of his family and his slaves, up to and including the death penalty. And in the feudal era the feudal lord dispensed justice to his serfs. A real feudal potentate could dispense all three of the high, middle, and low justice. But as time went by the state interposed itself between the family and the individual family members, and between feudal lord and the individual, and took away the powers of the patriarch. You will notice that the state today does not permit family members to imprison another member they consider to have committed a crime against the family. Only the state can do that.

The question is not whether we legislate morality but who gets to do it. The American idea of no establishment of religion is a modest attempt to avoid having one agent, the state church, with the sole power defining the morality to be used in legislation. But that is not the worst case. The worst case is what we call totalitarianism, where all power, religious and political, is concentrated in the government.

Many people in our society think they have risen above a narrow view of legislating morality by opposing gender roles and strict rules about sexual activity and imagine that they are therefore enlightened and liberated.

But, in fact, the removal of rules creates a danger that power will rule. Did the sexual revolution liberate the sexes, or does it pressure young women to agree to sex and submit to sexual harassment in the workplace? I would argue that the current #MeToo movement is a movement of women that want society to reimpose rules about sex and punish men that violate the rules. Do abortion laws liberate women from unwanted children, or do they help men pressure women into submitting to sex in the first place and "getting rid of it" later?

Does the abolition of gender roles liberate women to work in the workplace, or does it force women out of the home into the workplace who would prefer to live as wives and mothers? I would argue from my reductive Three Peoples theory that while People of the Creative Self want a world in which individuals can chart their own life courses the People of the Responsible Self want clear rules about what to do and what not to do. So who gets to set the rules? And can rules be set so that both people can choose which philosophy to follow?

There is a way, that if you are a creative person you join the church of creativity, a community of people that believe that people should choose their roles and not be forced into rigid gender and life roles. If you are a rules person then you join a modestly strict Christian church where the members all believe in following Biblical morality. But you will notice that there is always a temptation for liberals to enforce their world view on the deplorables, and a similar temptation for Christians to anathematize non-Christian world views. This would require the state to relax its rules and allow intermediary institutions to enforce rules upon their members.

Liberals luridly imagine a dystopia where everyone is forced into fundamentalist Christian morality in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Deplorables imagine a dystopia where everyone lives in a liberal arts college and is named and shamed for any discouraging word about race, gender, and LGBT.

Everyone lives in fear of being bullied around by someone else legislating morality and lives in anticipation of people like them living free as air when their own true morality is universally accepted and applied.  But the fact is that the whole point of human society is to soften the hardness of power into the softness of rules that even the powerful have to observe.

There is a name for this taming of the powerful: the legislation of morality.

Free Spirit vs. Fettered Spirit

Having read the later Nietzsche -- Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, The Genealogy of Morality, etc. -- I have gone back to the start of his thinking, specifically Human, All Too Human: A book for free spirits.

I realize, as I read Human, All Too Human, that this is where Nietzsche first develops the ideas that are tossed around like fireworks in his later work. And by the way, the guy that was publishing his later work was encouraging him to amp up the controversial in order to improve book sales. Titles like Thus Spake Zarathustra sold about 125 copies out of a print run of 1,000.

My interest in Nietzsche derives partly from my project to read and understand the German Miracle, from Kant to quantum mechanics, and partly a project to mine him for ideas with which to broaden and deepen my own Three Peoples notion: that We Humans can be divided, admittedly in a reductive manner, into People of the Creative Self, artists and writers; People of the Responsible Self, the solid middle class; and People of the Subordinate Self, workers and peasants and victims.

For it is obvious to me that Nietzsche's basic aim is to prophesy the transition from the responsible life of good and evil to the creative live of imagining something new.

So, about a quarter of the way through Human, All Too Human, Nietzsche prophesies the "free spirit:"

He is called a free spirit who thinks differently from what, on the basis of his origin, environment, his class and profession, or on the basis of the dominant views of the age, would have been expected of him. He is the exception, the fettered spirits are the rule[.]

Pretty obviously, this aligns with my idea of the People of the Creative Self. Then Nietzsche anathematizes the "fettered spirit" through its accusations against the free spirit: that the free spirit wants "to shock and offend... in actions incompatible with sound morals." Or maybe the free spirit arrived at his correct ideas by wrong paths.

As a rule, though, [the free spirit] will nonetheless have truth on his side, or at least the spirit of inquiry after truth: he demands reasons, the rest demand faith.

You can see that in the time that Nietzsche was writing, the free spirit was clearly the creative artist or thinker, and the fettered spirit was clearly the ordinary bourgeois trapped in the coils of good and evil; that is what Nietzsche assumes when he rails against "the priests" that taught us to hate ourselves and fetter ourselves in the prison of good and evil.

But, for the 21st century, I propose a different analysis. In my view the People of the Responsible Self are not fettering themselves with the notions of good and evil, they are instead putting on the armor of light that protects them on the journey from subordination to responsibility. That is why enthusiastic Christianity is the religion of emerging Africa and the populist movement in Brazil. And why it was the religion of the hero and heroine of George Eliot's Adam Bede: Adam, the worthy carpenter exploring his way to responsibility; and Dinah Morris, the Methodist lay preacher; both children of the farm making the journey from agricultural idiocy to middle-class responsibility.

No, today the fettered spirits are the believers in progressive or lefty orthodoxy, that imagine they are creative and contrarian, but in fact are merely the rank-and-file of the secular religion that superseded the God-based religion of Christianity. Your progressive thinks and believes exactly "what, on the basis of his origin, environment, his class and profession, or on the basis of the dominant views of the age, would [be] expected of him." Or Twitter will know the reason why.

The free spirit has been further developed by the Jungians to be the sacrificial hero who, in the Hero's Journey into the underworld of the unconscious, learns how to benefit mankind by a perilous adventure on the border between Order and Chaos.

So I propose to define the free spirit as the creative person truly trying to think new thoughts and ideas, and the fettered spirit as a fake creative that really is completely fettered by the conventional wisdom of the age.

So I would divide the People of the Creative Self into two parts; the free spirits or true creatives living on the border of Order and Chaos; and the fettered spirits, or fake creatives living in a fantasy world.

But then I would, wouldn't I.

Leftism is a School of Hate

Mulling over the fake hate crime craze, I finally realized what it is all about. Hate.

Well, of course. But then in the middle of the night I realized what it is all about, why lefties are convinced that the world hates them.

It is because lefties teach their supporters to hate. Leftism is a school of hate. Let us begin at the beginning.

With Marx, the left began by teaching the working class to hate the middle class. That's because the middle class, the bourgeoisie, according to Marx, were the chaps responsible for exploiting the workers, just as the feudal lords had exploited the peasants. Because labor theory of value.

In fact in the textile revolution, followed by the steam revolution, the middle class gave the workers jobs; thus the landless laborers that were being thrown off the land because of mechanical threshing machines got to live. And when lefty activists demanded that the middle class give the workers the vote, son-of-the-middle-class Benjamin Disraeli was the prime minister that expanded the franchise. By the turn of the 20th century, in Britain, the working class was enjoying a modest, but robust prosperity. So how about that middle-class! Maybe they were willing to accommodate the just demands of the working class. So middle-class classists were willing to do this?

Then came feminism, and the left taught women to hate men. And marriage and babies. That's because men represented a patriarchy that had exploited and oppressed women since the dawn of time. So I suppose that when noble widows got to enjoy up to three dowers (income during widowhood) during the Middle Ages, and no attempt was  made by the patriarchs in the legal profession to deprive these women of their income that was often a substantial drain on the wealth and the political power of noble estates, somehow this was exploitation of women. On the fiction front there is the curious case of Helena, the heroine of Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well first produced around 1600. This young woman seems to have agency, and bravely acts to win the hand of the noble -- but contemptible -- Bertram, the man who spurns her as the daughter of a middle-class apothecary far beneath him in status. How come the patriarchy put up with this?

But men were perfectly willing to give women the vote, and in due course no-fault divorce, and abortion on demand. How come they allowed this, if they were sexists and fierce patriarchs determined to keep women down? So male sexists were willing to do this?

Then came civil rights, and the left taught blacks to hate whites. So the blacks were slaves. So was almost everyone, slave or serf, until the day before yesterday. So Jim Crow denied blacks civil rights in the South. So did Hitler and Stalin and Mao deny civil rights to everyone in their power. So does Maduro in Venezuela today. Why, President Maduro even detained lefty journalist Jorge Ramos and then deported him for asking him an impertinent question.

But whites in America were willing to be persuaded in the civil rights era that blacks should receive full civil rights in specific legislation that defined those rights. So white racists were willing to do this? And ever since they have put up with being stigmatized as racists without rioting in the streets?

Then came gay liberation, and the left taught gays to hate straights. Over the past generation, the supposed implacable homophobes have acquiesced to decriminalization of gay sex, permitting gays to openly live as gays, and seen the legalization of civil partnerships and gay marriage. And the homophobic straights put up with this?

Now we have the left teaching Muslims to hate the West, illegal aliens to hate borders, and millennials to hate carbon dioxide and the evil fossil-fuel industry that spews it into the air. Of course they are. Because leftism is the school of hate.

But why? I will tell you. It falls naturally out of my maxims, that politics is division and government is force.

If you believe that politics is a necessary evil, then politics and elections are minor events that stir the voters up for a season, and after the election the passions subside. Because no big deal.

But if you believe, with the left, that progressive politics is a saving truth, then the Other must be Evil for opposing you. You must mobilize your supporters as if for war: hey, it's a matter of life and death! How do you mobilize your supporters for war? You teach them to hate the enemy. That is what Orwell's Three Minute Hate was all about in 1984. That is what war propaganda is all about.

But why now?  Why all the hate now, hating white supremacists, toxic masculinity, gay bashers, Islamophobes and xenophobes? And why the fake hate crimes?

It is because to continue the revolution you must re-up the enthusiasm. And obviously, fifty years after the civil rights era, that gets to be harder to do. But if you are a good little girl learning all about toxic masculinity in Gender Studies, you need to find actual evidence of toxic masculinity, and, by hook or by crook, you do. If you are a good little boy learning all about racism in Race Studies class, you need  to find actual racists out there, and prompted by your teachers, you see red MAGA hats behind every tree.

The fact is that the left has been wrong all along. The middle class are not implacable exploiters, determined to keep the working class down. Nor are men determined to keep women down, or white  determined to keep blacks down, or gays in the closet. It is not that we are angels, but just that the middle class is not that interested in power, and therefore not that invested in hate.

So it is probably time to wind down all the lefty movements -- except the anti-borders movement and pro-Islam movement -- because workers got their rights, women got their abortions, blacks got their civil rights, and gays got their gay marriage.

Well, that's not how politics works, and especially lefty politics. The left taught the workers to hate the middle class. You think they are going to call off the hate? The left taught women to hate men. You think those man-haters are going to wash away their rage? The left taught blacks to hate whites. You think they are going to give away the black vote to Trump without a fight?

From the day that Marx declared war on the bourgeoisie, the left has been a school of hate. You think they are ever going to change?

Tell me why.