http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1385182

Exclusive: Why the Left Seems Right

Author: Bob Parks
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: November 2, 2007

We laugh at phony predictions made by psychics and fortune tellers, but there is a large group of people that makes predictions on a daily basis – but when they’re wrong, we don’t call them on it. Why not? FSM Contributing Editor Bob Parks delves into a strange phenomenon where the Left always seems as though it’s right.

Why the Left Seems Right

By Bob Parks

I have a question: are liberals always right, or are the rest of us always wrong?

A British survey just came out, where respondents voted on the 100 most notable geniuses of our time. Check out some of the names that made the list: Matt Groening (creator of “The Simpsons”), Nelson Mandela, record producer Brian Eno, Steven Spielberg, musical artist Prince, Mohammed Ali, Bill Gates, Stevie Wonder, Meryl Streep, Paul McCartney, Stephen King, Aretha Franklin, David Bowie, Dolly Parton, and Osama bin Laden. Billionaire finance-everything-liberal George Soros was the number three.

Most of those who made the list are liberals. So does this mean they are geniuses, and if so, who are we to question them?

For example, Al Gore says “the debate is over” when it comes to global warming. That means no more questions may be asked. Yet he’s declined every venue for debate where his position could be challenged. I’ve accepted every opportunity for a debate here locally, but the other side changed their minds after I accepted. I assume more important things came up.

Alarmists claim the Earth is warming up at a catastrophic pace, yet I remember freezing my butt off in a Boston apartment during the winter of 1980 while hearing stories of the coming ice age.

Meteorologists can’t accurately predict what the weather will be this weekend, but the global warming crowd is telling us what the world will be like 100 years from now. Experts were wrong in the past. The problem is, they never admit it, so the perception left is that they were right.

Actor Ted Danson warned us if we didn’t stop polluting the oceans, we’d all die within ten years from a lack of drinking water. He said that in 1989. I’ve had a drink of water every day since with no noticeable shortage in sight. Ted Danson never admitted he was wrong.

The appearance left is that he was right.

We were told that use of the chemical DDT to kill mosquitoes was also killing off the bald eagle and osprey, with marine biologist and activist Rachel Carson leading the charge. DDT was banned in 1972 in the United States, and later in many parts of the world.

Many link the resurgence of millions of Third World malaria deaths to the ban. Those who defend the ban say that DDT was mainly used indoors to spray furniture. If that were the case, how would indoor use endanger so many animals outdoors?

What seems clear is that millions of people have died needlessly because environmentalists banned a substance that was meant to save lives. We have West Nile disease and EEE in America today. First people die, and then we spray an area after a mosquito is found to be a carrier.

One can debate the numbers, but it’s clear the banning has resulted in many, many needless deaths. We have yet to hear any apologies from those who pushed the scare on the rest of us.

The appearance left is that those who advocated the DDT ban were right.

In that same vein, one of our geniuses, actress Meryl Streep, testified before Congress in 1989 about the cancer dangers of Alar, a chemical used to help apples ripen longer before falling from the tree. Everyone panicked, Alar was banned, and the apple industry was temporarily hit – yet not one death was ever blamed on cancer caused by Alar.

The appearance left was that Meryl Streep was right.

Smoking cigarettes is not the healthiest of activities, and those who use this legal product are summarily vilified. We are told on an almost daily basis that cigarettes kill. The problem is that can’t really be proven.

I’m not advocating the use of cigarettes, but not every smoker gets lung cancer. Some non-smokers do. Not one death has ever been linked to the dreaded “second-hand smoke,” yet smokers are being denied the right to smoke during their breaks at work and even in public places. Some are even being sued for smoking in their homes and cars.

People die of colon cancer, cancer in blood and bones, brain cancer, and liver cancer. We can’t ban colons, blood, bones, brains, and livers. It’s a fact that all people will die of something and cancers are not always related to that patient’s activities. So to say that smoking causes cancer could be considered a stretch.

But what I’ve never understood is that if smoking kills people, why haven’t tobacco products been banned? The answer is because the Left loves the money it confiscates from smokers in the way of taxes to fund many of their social programs, including S-CHIP. If all smokers were to quit tomorrow, many of those social programs would go belly up, and we can’t have that.

The point is, until smoking is PROVEN to kill everyone who lights up, one can’t logically say that cigarettes are a proven carcinogen. If that were the case, it should and would be banned. But controlling the behavior of all is the overall goal. And the use of a legal product that some claim “kills” to raise money is nothing short of prostitution in the most negative sense of the word.

The appearance left is that the anti-smoking Nazis were right.

After Hurricane Katrina, liberal politicians, environmentalists, and Hollywood filmmakers warned us of impending super storms that would make Katrina look like bad breath. Hurricane Katrina was even blamed on global warming.

However, tropical storm activity over the last two years is at its lowest level since 1977. Did any of you hear a retraction?

The appearance left is that the environmentalists were right.

When civilians and our soldiers overseas were being targeted by Iraqi insurgents, all we heard from the Left is that we need to get out of this “unwinnable, immoral civil war.” But have you noticed that we’re not hearing as much of the bad news coming from Iraq lately? Many of the reports that are coming back show that al Qaeda is being rejected by the locals. American soldiers are being welcomed into people’s homes, the violence is way down, and even the genius Osama bin Laden’s desperate call to his minions to refocus their deadly efforts is to no avail.

One of the greatest ironies of our situation in Iraq today is the fact that it’s safer to walk around some parts of Baghdad than parts of many of our major metropolitan areas. The anti-war Left conveniently ignores all the positive news coming from Iraq – positive news that should make any real American optimistic.

But the anti-war Left can never acknowledge that the war is showing positive results for our side. To this day, they maintain the war is “unwinnable” and “immoral,” despite the fact that a dictatorship has been toppled, rape rooms have been closed, and mass graves have stopped being filled.

The anti-war Left will not admit our successes, so in their minds, they were right all along.

The safest place for the Left is where their ideas are safe from challenge. That way, they’ll always look right.

That’s why they gravitate toward government jobs, like teaching. There, their intelligence is never questioned. It’s always assumed they’re right, and they’re in positions where those on the receiving end of their dictates are dependent on them for grades – or in some cases, their day-to-day survival.

There are many other examples of good liberal intentions gone awry. When they do, liberals don’t accept any responsibility for the problems, and in some cases the deaths, they cause. By keeping silent, activists can continue to issue warnings and panics because the impression remains that they’ve always been right about everything they warn about.

So if you think about it, the only reason we keep listening to the liberal panics is because they have false credibility. Those panics have resulted in massive changes in our lifestyles, and in some cases, millions of injuries or deaths.

Yet we continue to listen to them because they appear to be right. But that’s only because the refuse to admit they were wrong. It’s arrogant – but true.

There's some truth in that article, Gilster, but as far as I'm concerned the biggest lie of all is that the political terms "left" and "right," "liberal" and "conservative," have one whit of truly useful meaning. They've been re-defined until they have scarcely any meaning at all.

When I say that to most people, they blink and look at me like I am crazy, then go straight forward arguing from their own fully propagandized perspectives. My girlfriend is no exception. Even though at heart she's essentially libertarian (not a meaningless label yet, although "good people" are "working hard" to make it one) she identifies herself as a liberal, primarily because she's thought in terms of "liberal vs. conservative" for so long she has trouble breaking out of the box.

But, if you'll notice, both camps have their own lists of freedoms they'd like to see (or keep) destroyed. Generally speaking, "conservatives" want to take away your reproductive freedom, your recreational substances, and your privacy, while "liberals" want your guns, your private property, and your money. Also, if you're paying attention, you'll become aware that those in favor of greater government control over the individual--"left" or "right"--have been very successful in getting their way.

The people who haven't been successful at all are those of us who want government to mind its own freaking business.

The only political spectrum that makes one iota of difference is the one with those who want more government control over the individual (authoritarians) at one end, and those who want less (libertarians) at the other.

The corporate, mainstream media is neither "liberal" nor "conservative." You can flip through the dial and find whatever you're looking for in that regard. However, what the MSM primarily is, is authoritarian, and every single mainstream corporate outlet--"left" or "right"--treats libertarians as if we were a bunch of kooks in tinfoil hats.

That is by design.

If we're going to see any real change, we're going to have to embrace the idea that ALL freedom is worth defending--even the freedom of those whose choices and pleasures we might personally loathe. Anything less simply leads to being divided and conquered.

Just another way of thinking:and it IS the only way I think I can live on this planet today.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objecti...s&printer_friendly=1

Ayn Rand named her philosophy "Objectivism" and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She later expressed her philosophy in nonfiction form.

Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

She then translated those terms into familiar language:

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
"You can't eat your cake and have it, too."
"Man is an end in himself."
"Give me liberty or give me death."

Politics
"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force—i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth."

quote:

Originally posted by Robert A Cook:
The corporate, mainstream media is neither "liberal" nor "conservative." You can flip through the dial and find whatever you're looking for in that regard. However, what the MSM primarily is, is authoritarian, and every single mainstream corporate outlet--"left" or "right"--treats libertarians as if we were a bunch of kooks in tinfoil hats.

That is by design.

Until Libertarians can get a decent showing of citizens to run for office, and not those 'kooks in tinfoil hats' [and there are a lot of Libertarians who are kooks] the party will go nowhere.

H Ross Perot ran as a Libertarian - I voted for him [even with his wacky pick for VP-(why on God's green earth couldn't he find a better running mate?)]

The MSM [tv and the powerful newspapers] are definitely left leaning - Radio is 'right-leaning and all the 'right' has for a voice in the media; the internet goes both ways and is a dangerous foe to politicians and the last 'checks and balances' we have left.

gilster: "H Ross Perot ran as a Libertarian...."

No, he didn't. Perot created his own party, the Reform Party, and ran as that. The Reform Party was a party without a coherent platform, whereas the Libertarian Party has the most focused platform of any: restore Constitutional government, period.

As for the Libertarian Party being full of kooks, I have to wonder about that. I can't help but think it's been deliberately infiltrated by agents provocateurs whose job it is to act like kooks, thereby damaging the credibility of the whole. That isn't even remotely "conspiracy theory." We know that technique is used all the time. It was used against the Civil Rights movement and practically every other "radical" 'sixties group that threatened the status quo. It is still being used, because it works.

But kooky ideas, once introduced, seem to develop a life of their own (like the idea that sidestream smoke is more dangerous than primary smoking, for instance). As Kurt Vonnegut observed, "There was no immunity to cuckoo ideas on Earth.” Years ago, I was active on a Libertarian message board where the idiotic "Guns for Tots" stunt was being planned, and I was the lone voice saying, "This is a very bad idea, guys." For those who don't remember, the idea was for Libertarians to hand out toy guns to children, and when they did, oddly enough, it seemed not only was the press in attendance, but it just so happened that flocks of children who expressed outrage and screamed things like, "Why are you handing out violent, yukky toys?! Why aren't you handing out NICE toys instead?!" were as well. The press had a field day, the Libertarians looked like idiots, and I had the cold satisfaction of having played Cassandra once again.

On that message board, when I tried to warn them in advance, I was shouted down with a vengeance. At least one contributor accused me of being a plant, saying I was only trying to stop a very promising publicity stunt. Others immediately jumped on the bandwagon, saying, "Yeah! Yeah!" I have always wondered if agents provocateurs--plants--weren't behind that debacle.

If they weren't, they might as well have been. "Guns for Tots" was an unmitigated PR disaster. It didn't take a Cassandra to see that one coming.

I want to return for a moment to Oldstudent's observations about Ayn Rand (whom I greatly admired)....

oldstudent: "...The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism...."

As I see it, laissez-faire is the crucial term here, but what the U.S. now has no more resembles the economic theories of Adam Smith than Soviet Communism (Stalinism) resembled the economic theories of Karl Marx. Neither Smith nor Marx were "evil," but both had their ideas seized by tinhorn dictators with agendas who turned them into something twisted and perverted.

What the U.S. now has could more precisely be called "Corporatism," whereby the ownership of virtually everything is centralized in the hands of a few gigantic conglomerates, and competition is not only discouraged, but forbidden by laws passed through our sold-out whores in Congress (and both other branches of U.S. government). Global corporations own our government officials. The vast majority of those cretins in office don't work for us; they work for them, and the few exceptions (Ron Paul, for instance) are so rare that they can't really make much of a difference.

Does "Corporatism" sound familiar? Goods, resources, and ownership concentrated in the hands of a tiny, unbelievably powerful minority? It should. It's essentially Stalinism all over again, only we don't call it that. We've inserted a puppet "government" between ourselves and our real masters, and we call them "corporations" rather than state officials.

The only significant difference lies in the labels we use.

Any politicoeconomic system, no matter how well-intentioned, is prone to corruption if the citizenry is not educated, enlightened and vigilant. The good news is, Corporatism stands about as good a chance of long-term survival as Stalinism or Fascism did.

Don't believe me? Hide and watch.

I think this an important point, and I think that Robert has touched the proper high notes here, so I just want to emphasize something here that I think both Robert and Ayn Rand would agree with.

The problem isn't so much corporatism, so long as corporatism doesn't become married to government and/or doesn't become a monopoly.

When corporations exist and thrive in the free market they are really a great benefit to society, so long as they don't find themselves entangled in keeping government off their back when it isn't appropriate. The mixture of corporations and government has led to the detriment of our society.

For instance, if Wal-Mart was a government program for delivering low cost groceries and supplies to people, it would be the most successful government program of all time.

Also, Wal-Mart is not the permanent king that it is made out to be. Target, a year or two ago, actually beat Wal-Mart in retail sales. Also, Sears, Montgomery Ward and Woolworth's once held similar positions in this country as the kings of retail, only to become the dinosaurs that they are today via free market compeitition.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart is one of the worst purveyors of taking advantage of The Supreme Court's decision to pretty much eliminate property rights via Eminent Domain. If Wal-Mart wants to build a store where your house is; look out.

Personally, I bought my groceries at Wal-Mart for years, until I went to one of the competing supermarkets one day. The meat and produce at Wal-Mart is of inferior quality, probably due to their Machiavellian pricing policies. The Free Market is quite wise in this way.

Other retailers, like Target, and many grocery chains, stopped competing with Wal-Mart on price and started delivering higher quality products and services, as well as a greater diversity in brands, as a means of compeitition. Wal-Mart, with its megastore "Make it cheap" mentality, has experienced marginal losses that other retailers are taking advantage of.

So, again, I think I agree here with Robert's point regarding corporatism and Big Government, but I wanted to add a bit of punch. There's nothing wrong with Big Business, so long as it doesn't become a monopoly and infringe on individual rights. Marriage to Big Government is what creates this scenario. The shared bed of Big Pharma and the FDA is case in point.

We probably need a carefully worded constitutional amendment to eliminate this problem, but that is unlikely to happen in any of our lifetimes.

Sorry for double posting but I'd also like to comment on the original article, posted by Gilster.

Without giving away too much here, I have people in my family who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Really, on one level, Jehovah's Witnesses are very good, moral people, with the best of intentions. On another level, though, they're manipulative and, without knowing it, a bit evil.

When you look at a religion that so many consider extreme, like Jehovah's Witnesses, you have to wonder how they find so many followers.

They use the "precautionary principle". Basically, they tell people that the world is going to end very soon and that anyone who is not a Jehovah's Witness is going to die a horrible death when the world ends. They especially prey on the "half-assed" religious. In other words, they seek out people who believe in the biblical God, but don't attend church regularly. The Jehovah's Witnesses are literalists when it comes to the Bible and they believe that it is a literal text without room for subjective interpretation. In this way, as long as anyone believes that the Bible is true and good, they've gotcha. I've seen people who were frothing at the mouth against Jehovah's Witnesses later become Jehovah's witnesses themselves.

I'm not really interested here in a discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses or religion, though I recognize that I've now opened the door. That is why I post it reluctantly.

I am trying to point out, though, that you can get the vast majority of people to behave any way you want as soon as you introduce "The Precautionary Principle" which is, in short, behave the way we tell you to, or you'll die. If that is not enough, and you're not concerned about yourself, please know also that those you are closest to will also die.

Perhaps because this was tried on me at a very young age and I became painfully familiar with it then is what leads me to post adamantly on boards like this now.

This ancient, dogmatic virus doesn't come from a single source, like religion, as thinkers like Richard Dawkins and others would have you believe. This force is very, very powerful and it will corrupt all systems, and any system, at every time, at any time. It like having a wall of water leaning on the other side of a closed door. Produce even a crack, and it flows in uncontrollably, via every path of least resistance. We mistakenly believe that it is recognizable by form. We invoke religion, Hitler, Stalin, cultism, whatever. The truth is that the force itself doesn't care about form, it doesn't have the capacity of "caring", it just flows via the path of least resistance, always expressing itself as collectivism and dogmatism.

In closing, to add to the author of the article's point, why is the Left so seemingly invulnerable in its viewpoints? I consider myself to be more of a libertarian/conservative, but The Left seems to never quarrel amongst its doctrinaires. Find a Leftist who disagrees at all with Al Gore. Find a Leftist who isn't at least sympathetic to Leftist views. The whole Leftist system is so incredibly confident that it is correct, 100% of the time, that it almost has to be wrong. No system of thought in the history of mankind can claim the absolute, elitist infallibility that the Left claims for itself. It seems to assume that The whole Global Warming, Second-hand smoke, anti-God, anti-capitalism, pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-war (not "pro-peace"), pro-equality doctrine is 100% infallible and that anything springing from this source of thinking is equally infallible. It is never failing, despite consistent historical failure with the worst of consequences. It is never wrong, despite always being counter-intuitive and unnatural feeling.

Do people really believe that a life of salads is better than a life of steaks and cheeseburgers? Do people really believe that asceticism is worth it in a world without a God? Do people really believe that a lack of choice is better than choice? Do people really believe that is better to claim magical asthma and and bitch than leave their neighbor alone, in a "live and let live" environment?

Apparently they do. I don't think that we live in a real world anymore. I don't think that it was by conspiracy or individual design, but we live in a false reality where the lunatics are running the asylum. Something's very, very wrong and it's not us. It's them, and we're vastly outnumbered.

WinstonSmith: "...The problem isn't so much corporatism, so long as corporatism doesn't become married to government and/or doesn't become a monopoly...."

Well... when I see the "-ism" on the end of that word, I associate it with exactly what you're describing, Winston: corporations married to the government. I'm down with laissez-faire capitalism and the concept of the corporation (how can you tell people they can't collectively own a business and allow them to remain free? ...you can't) but "Corporatism" is pure evil. It's essentially the same thing you're talking about when you say "Neo-Communism."

Down in Picking the Mind of an Anti > Evil Part IV, I just got through lamenting the way our culture has been skillfully canalized, channeled into patterns of black-or-white, either-or, this-or-that... it's called the Bifurcation Fallacy: "Well, I suppose you're all in favor of smoking up, shooting up, snorting up, running naked in the streets, sodomy in the parks, screwing animals and children, whatever. That must be what you want, you sick anarchist, you terrorist!"

See how it works?

But, as America's Founding Fathers intended it anyway, government does have its place. It was supposed to be a mechanism for protecting the rights of the people, with strictly limited, enumerated powers, and everything else left as a matter for the people to decide within their own states. But that concept was moribund by 1909, and by 1940 it was completely rotted.

I believe we need to restore it. This is where my essentially Libertarian philosophy hits the wall: antitrust law is a good idea. There was supposed to be a cap on power to protect individual freedom and permit fair, open competition. The system we now have is precisely the opposite of that. Individual rights should trump organizational rights, it's that simple.

What bothers me is that I'm finding myself taking a canalized position myself... proposing government as the answer, but if not government then whom? Maybe the very idea of government is a bad idea. At least with businesses, you can vote with your feet.

...Or in most cases you can. With a retail chain like WalMart, which Winston mentioned, you pretty much can. But, there are some things for which demand is inelastic. Energy (Big Oil) is one item we don't have much choice about. Healthcare (Big Pharma) is another, and you'll notice those two also happen to be the 800 pound gorillas in the room. Now that we've permitted merger after merger, the creation of conglomerate after conglomerate, big fish swallowing little fish and being swallowed by bigger fish--as well as supporting existing corporate hegemony through policies like the War on Drugs and suppression of alternative energy research--there's too much power concentrated in the hand of UNIMAGINABLY HUGE GLOBAL BUSINESS to leave fairness up to it.

Either-or. Government-or-business. I don't like it. Not one bit.

Does anybody have a better way of organizing the kind of power I'm talking about? Religion is a third, but church and state holding hands has proven to be as vile a philosophy as business and state holding hands. Ideally those juggernauts should check and balance each other, not gang up against the individual; however, you'll notice that that's exactly what has happened.

Government... business... church... what's left?

The kind of folks who go to the woods, dance naked around campfires, do lots of drugs, have crazy sex, and keep their activities secret probably have the right answer: just walk away from the whole corrupt scene and do as you damn well please. You sure won't be hassled by them for smoking a cigarette (unless you fall in with the "brown rice hippies," but they're a subculture within a subculture). Freaks constitute a vast, mostly invisible economy and power structure, but in terms of visible power they probably won't have much in the foreseeable future. Visibility would just draw unfavorable attention. Furthermore, as far as organizing them goes, they're worse than herding cats.

I'm out of network choices. Does anyone else see any?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Robert A Cook,

wow good damn good post logical and right on the mark Robert..gives a person a lot to mull over.. how can it be changed to what its supose to be,, separating government...businesses and church from each other.

The U.S. could still push the idea of truly open markets. We still drive more than a quarter of the global economy. It's up to consumers, really.

Me, you'll find with my TV and radio turned off, listening to old vinyl albums, CDs, and DVDs I've selected.

You might even find me dancing naked around a campfire. If you do, I'll be smoking something.