Mar 16 2012

The Demise Of Progressive Socialism

I think one of the deep nagging problems with this election cycle is how we are experiencing the demise of big-government intervention as we collectively realize there are no easy (or cheap) answers to be found in the mythical magic of government as our savior. Government has a role to play, but as been shown as human society transitioned through a series of violent historic evolutions, this role has been settling towards an optimum balance that we have yet to reach. We are closer, but we could drift off into the ditch easily.

In the barbaric past humanity was basically operating within the constructs of Anarchy.

Anarchy, has more than one definition. In the United States, the term “anarchy” typically is meant to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.

Anarchistic social structures are open to misuse and abuse, as they are built upon the rule of the fittest, strongest or (too often) cruelest. We can see the vestiges of humanity’s anarchist roots in the cruelty of ancient civilizations ranging from Egypt to Greece to Rome. Anarchy is one end of the social spectrum most modern society’s know to avoid at all costs. Even a slight tilt in that direction get’s you a beat up, dirty, violent result (see NY City prior to Rudy Giuliani and his application of the broken window rule).

As we evolved toward orderly society the pendulum swung around to the other extreme – the dictatorial rule of the individual and their close band of thugs. This model ran under various themes from Egypt and her Pharaohs, through Rome and her Emperors, through Europe and their Kings, through China and more Emperors, Russia and Czars, , etc. The rule of the strongman individual culminated in its violent peak in the early 19th century when we had World Wars I and II – initiated by the strongmen of the time and legendary purveyors of death and destruction. This is the era of Hitler and the Holocaust, Stalin and his Purges and Hirohito and his War Crimes. Remnants lived on in isolated areas, but they are slowly dying off (see Pol Pot in Combodia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, various war lords of Africa, and he despots of North Korea).

The nation that stood tall to end this madman government model was the United States of America, allied with other countries that had switched to (or were switching to) a model were government was minimal, had numerous checks and balances to thwart madman government, and relied on the wisdom and INDIVIDUAL efforts of its people. World War II saw the ascendency of the “We The People” model.

This decentralized government model, where people exploited their freedom of choice to create a positive direction for the whole society out of literally millions of individual ‘good’ decisions each day by the masses, was the best solution to the two extremes (Anarchy and Violent Dictatorial Rule). It produced a balance that protected the individual and their freedom, established boundaries of behavior that protected those freedoms from others, and allowed the masses to drive  the direction forward.

But somewhere after WWII and during the Cold War the minimal government model began to fall apart as a new, more screwed up model came into fashion. And that model is the progressive socialism out of control bureaucracy.

Call it the Mindless Bureaucracy. Whatever it is,  it is also a headless economic cancer. This model sinks back into the central control model of the madman leader – except the scope the madman can exert is limited to just a small piece of society – not all of it. So now we have a DC madman and his group of merry thugs running around inspecting school lunches. Another mad person running around measuring carbon foot prints. Another mad person running around checking fence heights and mailbox colors. Some mad council somewhere is determining when a toy in the hands of a fool causes injury, it is the toy’s fault. Or that the idiot with hot coffee between her legs while driving is the victim of the drive-through restaurant she ordered from.

Update: This news just hit Drudge. Basically it says pools have been temporarily saved from massive closures to avoid law suits. Liberals at work. – end update.

Or worse. Now we get the mad council of know-it alls determining who should get what medical treatments. Note how individual responsibility for their freedom of choice has been eroded to result in remove of freedom of choice by the government – who is out to protect us from our own freedom of choice. That is the cancer we are swimming in.

This mindless centralized government may actually be orchestrated and protected by a small group of wealthy political power players who endlessly fight over which side version of mad we will operate under: the juvenile delinquent and lazy mad of the left or the prudish and paranoid mad of the right. But it matters not. The headless big government model is failing.

What Americans want is the old US of A back. They want to live their lives and do what they know is right. And right now neither political party nor any of the presidential candidate has caught up with this new reality. But before I dive into where the people are versus the Political Industrial Complex (now falling behind the times), let me finish proving we are at the beginning of the end of mindless big government (i.e., progressive socialism). The signs are all about us.

First and close to home – and proving beyond a doubt neither left nor right leaning political professionals understand where we are – was the 2010 election. Obama, Reid and Pelosi had no idea they actually had to produce results to win support in the next election. They had no idea that their naive economic theories were so stupid and childish in the face of a very complex, very modern and very dynamic world. The community organizer has changed politics forever through his long laundry list of failures. That is why his party received the biggest electoral shellackings in living memory in 2010. He ushered in the end of progressive socialism.

But then the GOP in 2011 took that huge mandate and frittered it away in the budget battles. They kept raising the size of government with empty promises of future cuts. They were indistinguishable from Obama and his promise of economic success through crushing deficits, high unemployment, sky rocketing energy costs and higher taxes. The House GOP silenced and hand cuffed their 2010 insurgent members – and is now seen as being as much of the problem as the left. That is the straw that ended the enchantment with any form of big government here in the US.

Greece, Spain and Europe’s general economic woes are eye-watering evidence that bloated bureaucracies focused on minutiae and promising endless ‘free’ handouts is unsustainable and will lead, unavoidably, to financial ruin.

Right near the top of the pile is Spain, where the economy is once again back in recession, the unemployment rate is a staggering 23%, house prices are collapsing and the government is set to implement even further austerity this year.

The wasteful, useless and naive spending is starting to inflict massive pain on the people. In the EU the myth of ‘renewable energy’ is going the way of ‘shovel ready jobs’ here in the US. Watch for many more stories  like this in the coming months and years:

WIND power – more accurately wind impotence, since turbines operate at just 24 per cent of capacity – is the curse of Scotland. One of the most beautiful landscapes in Europe has been brutally ravaged, families have been driven into fuel poverty, pensioners have been presented with the lethal dilemma “heat or eat” – all to appease the neurotic prejudices of global warming fanatics.

Last week, the punitive costs of this lunacy were exposed in a report by Professor Gordon Hughes, professor of economics at Edinburgh University. He has calculated that the bill for wind energy by 2020 will cost consumers £120 billion. Yet generating the same amount of electricity from efficient gas-powered stations would cost only £13bn.

And now we see the same financial implosion on the Health Care front here in the USA:

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office hands critics of the health reform law a great new talking point: Under a worst-case scenario, the law could lead to 20 million people losing their employer-sponsored insurance in 2019.

Combined with the 6 million more not working due to Obama’s failed economic policies it will be more than 20 million without employer supplied health care in the near future. In tandem with the now rising cost of Obamacare, the result will be a total and painful mess.

So how could the GOP misstep on this clear opening? Simple – they stuck with big government solutions – just their versions.

Humanity has evolved from anarchy and survived to bury the idea of strongman/madman rule. It had for a brief time enjoyed the freedom of individual choice and responsibility, but then slipped into the doomed era of mindless big government run amok. The people are ready to dismantle the nanny state and retire her. The nag is going to the field to chew her cud sooner or later. Sooner is preferable.

To win elections today simply means to go back to America’s roots and realize taht when individual decisions rule the day, the worst damage that can be done by a bad decisions is to the individual (and sadly some around them). But when that individual is empowered as a bureaucrat in a life-long job, then those bad decision can ripple out to hurt all of us. The power behind the 2010 voting was the libertarian mindset to dismantle government and take the risk of bad individual decisions and recapture the success of millions of daily good decisions that made this country what it was in its prime.

If there is only  a choice between which big government madness will prevail (the ‘feel good’ message of the left or the ‘be proper’ message of the right) the GOP loses. Every damn time – they lose.

Why the GOP is seen as the worse of 2 evils is complex. For example, the right’s homophobic image and  promise to wage a war on porn (but of course, what is porn?) can sound good to some, but most people see just another stripe of busy-body madness in DC. In the end, the fight on sexual morals can only be waged in the home. There is no one size fits all for sex, religion and color preferences.

Do we really have to chose between the lunch police or the condom police?

Why can’t we just get back to the neighborhood police? And then live our lives the way we wish?

39 responses so far

39 Responses to “The Demise Of Progressive Socialism”

  1. Redteam says:

    Layman, would you point out where I indicated I care one way or another about whether Santorum wins or not? I prefer conservatives control the government. When you start talking about “believes that the Government should play a role in numerous items that most conservatives think the government should stay out of.” you’re not talking about ‘conservatives’ you’re talking about liberals. remember this: libs want more government, conservatives want less government. I make no claim about him being a minimalist or that he advocates for smaller government. If you ‘think’ I did, please point out where I said it. I’ll check out your previous post you mentioned, I’m sure I had thoughts on it.

  2. Redteam says:

    Layman, you’re referring to this?

    I said:
    “I think this one day is going to throw the nomination over to Santorum. He’s been trending upward for quite some time and when a lot of Romney supporters see that Romney is never going to be over about 33% tops, they are going to start switching over.
    But I thought Newt was going to be the nominee, so what do I know.

    (I do know I haven’t spent any overnights locked in a bar)”

    and you said:
    “Layman1 says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:57 pm


    Wishful thinking. Your boy Ricky may be getting the headlines but… ”

    Now I remember what I thought. You think I was ‘impressed’ with Ricks win and that I was endorsing him? LOL. don’t see how you might have read that into what I said. I was mere speculating. Still seems as if the ‘old mo’ is with Santorum. I personally don’t care for him, but he’s definitely better than Obama.

    No wait: you were talking about “(I do know I haven’t spent any overnights locked in a bar)”
    oh yeah, good thoughts.

  3. Frogg1 says:

    “Do we really have to chose between the lunch police or the condom police?

    Why can’t we just get back to the neighborhood police? And then live our lives the way we wish?” — AJ Strata-

    Say on, say on. Best phrase I’ve heard all year.

  4. ivehadit says:

    Excellent, WWS! And here’s the good news: WE DON’T HAVE TO ACCEPT THE DECAY!

    We need everyone to get out and spread the word. And keep spreading it day and night. Stay alert.

    The demise of America has been predicted over and over. And over and over we have fought back the nattering nabobs of destruction. This is our call to participate in history once again. We will succeed again…thanks in large part to the Tea Party and the net!

    Thank you for letting me shout…

  5. lurker9876 says:

    Santorum is BIG government statist.

    So is Romney.

    Newt is the only one that can move big things within the federal government but he just doesn’t have it.

    I don’t think the federal government should legislate things like Roe V Wade, pornography on the Internet, etc. It should be part of the morality of the society – under the rule of law (nature’s law and natural law). Not any government law.

  6. Redteam says:

    lurker, I’m with you. If a local government wants to set some standards for the local people and a majority is for it, that’s one thing. but the federal government telling people in NY city that they should have the same morals and standards as people in Podunk, that’s a different thing. Pornography on the internet shouldn’t be regulated. That gets into telling adults what to do in the privacy of their bedrooms. If someone wants to look at porn vs raping someone, it certainly seems to be a preferable alternative. If the neighborhood police can keep your home safe for you, that should mean that you can do what you want to do inside it.

  7. Redteam says:

    headline on Drudge:

    Obama thinks there are 57 or 58 states, I guess it’s okay if Drudge thinks there are 51..
    I’m voting for 50.

  8. dbostan says:

    It appears that Obama’s involvement with the Bolshevik Weather
    Underground/ Bill Ayers is FAR deeper and older than known so far. I
    have a very bad feeling about the future of our country.

  9. Layman1 says:

    RT: Get a sense of humor!!!!

  10. Redteam says:

    Layman, did you get locked overnight in that bar instead of WWS ?
    I thought I had a good sense of humor you might wanta check with WWS or CP about that.

  11. Redteam says:

    dbostan, thanks for that link. I had heard parts of the mailman story before, but that puts it into context. I don’t think very many thinking people would question whether all of it is true. Certainly most of it is. The only thing I seriously question is that Obama ever set foot on the Columbia campus. Not one living soul has ever stated that they saw him on that campus. There is no year book there with his name. There is no college(Columbia) record with his name on it. In fact, Occidental has no record of a Barack Obama ever having attended there.

  12. Layman1 says:

    The mailman… the birth certificate… natural born citizenship???

    Get over it folks! It isn’t that it’s not important – it’s that it does not matter. He is President. The House is not going to impeach. Even if they did the Senate (hello Harry Reid) is not going to have a trial.

    I see so many people spinning their wheels, getting worked up about this stuff. Put all that energy into positive action! Get rid of Obama in the election this November.

    And one more thing to consider: most uninformed/casual voters think this birther/Bill Ayers/radical/socialist/communist stuff is nonsense and the people discussing it are kooks. That’s just the way it is. Sorry, but reality is sometimes harsh. The people willing to listen to this stuff are already against Obama.

    You are not going to convince anyone to change their vote and vote against Obama by throwing the “birther argument” in their face. So my suggestion/advice/hope/plea is to focus on his miserable record – not his place of birth.

  13. jan says:

    I think there is a real story somewhere, lurking in Obama’s background. Whether it involves some long-range, convoluted conspiracy plan or not, Obama arguably has an unsorted, confusing past that has certainly been left unvetted, with lots of mystery surrounding it.

    However, like Layman says, repeated inquiries into Obama’s origins are not going to effect many minds and/or hearts of this current generation of voters. The issues of today are the economy, and how it impacts our lives, regarding unemployment, gas prices, housing, and so on. Therefore, one’s lifestyle, money, and individual freedoms are the front and center reasons people will or won’t vote for a person today. And, these are the priorities in which candidates and nominees will need to address and clarify for the people. Getting lost in the weeds of side controversies will only detract, as well as subtract, from the message being put out there, in an attempt to dislodge Obama from the presidency.

  14. dbostan says:

    The real story is not yet front page, until it will explode into a full constitutional crisis, which it is already.
    The truth of the matter is that the majority Americans are, willfully or not, misinformed.
    If you add the blatant media bias, this is a good explanation of how a character like Zero ended up our “president”.

  15. Redteam says:

    Layman, talking about getting a sense of humor, find the word ‘birther’ on this thread. The only mention of it is by a person telling someone to get over it. It is really strange when someone is advising someone to get over something that they never mentioned.
    The Senate couldn’t impeach Obama in any case for not being eligible. if he’s not eligible that makes him not a sitting president and only a sitting president can be impeached. and to be technically correct, I’m only speaking of the office of the president(not other federal officials)
    But I don’t care about discussing that anyhow, my point is from the ‘sense of humor’ side. Where Layman is telling someone to get over something they never mentioned
    Layman, do you live near WWS? that must be one helluva bar, locking drunks in overnight and all. while you are spending the night together get WWS to tell you how a forged car title is actually legal if you can get anyone from another state to swear it is, sight unseen. same with birth certificates. Personally I think it’s only a rumor, but who knows…

    and Layman, most of all, remember your advice… get a sense of humor.

  16. Redteam says:

    one other point Layman, if you think Dimocrats don’t buy the ‘birther’ argument, wait until Rubio, Jindal or Santorum gets the nomination. Then you’ll see how many Dims buy it.

  17. WWS says:

    I find it pretty funny that Redteam’s change of heart about Santorum can be dated to the exact minute that Santorum came out against internet porn. oops! should have waited a day or two, buddy, don’t make it so obvious!!!

  18. Redteam says:

    WWS, wow, they let you back out? So just where did I state an opinion about being for or against Santorum? Is there a basic problem with you being honest?
    and if you really want to be honest (I doubt that you do) give us a link to where Santorum says he is against internet porn that includes a time stamp with the ‘exact minute’ that this occurred.

    I haven’t made a study of it because I don’t care if there is such a thing as internet porn or not. What anyone wants to look at on a computer is their business, not mine.
    I believe Santorum’s statements involved ‘enforcing the laws that are on the books” not advocating for any new ones. So he would be saying that if there is a law against porn on the internet, either it should be enforced or taken off the books.
    By the way WWS, since you judge that I had a ‘change of heart’ about Santorum, tell me if I’m now for or against him. I’d kinda like to know.

    either way, I’ll forge you a certificate, send it to you in Texas and then get someone here to ‘swear’ that it’s legit, then you have no choice but to believe me. isn’t that correct?

    Funny the things that run through your mind when locked up drunk in a bar overnight, isn’t it?

    Keep up your sense of humor…

  19. Redteam says:

    “A Santorum campaign position paper states that as president, Santorum would order his attorney general to “vigorously enforce” existing laws to “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, ..”