The Will to See Madness
Behold! The latest cries for stimulus, with our own Mark Steyn there to stare directly into the eyes of a madman. Keynesian economics is here to stay.
Conservatives are not going to make any headway in Washington unless we stop basing our predictions of Democratic maneuvers on what's rational — on what we would do, what "must" be done — and start anticipating the actions of liberals based on their actual behavior.
Frankly, I think there's a lot of willful blindness on our side. We cannot afford to expect Democrats are going to suddenly wake up to reality and admit that their policies have failed. We cannot afford to take their words at face value or pretend they are genuinely interested in compromise.
Madness and ruin are what Democrats are offering. Republicans must base their plans on that.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Reminds me of this particular Demotivator poster.
Dec '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Yeah, I tried this conversation under the "liberalism is a mental disorder" rubric, but it didn't generate much gin. I'm not sure why conservatives, although claiming a strong commitment to the truth, are reluctant to point out how nuts these people are behaving. Is it the civility thing? I don't get it.
Dec '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
In a broader sense, have you noticed how reluctant people are to make definitive statements? Everything is equivical. It's always "I believe" or "in my opinion" or "in my experience." Parmenides is my favorite (presocratic) philosopher because he wrote "It is necessary to say and to think that What Is is."
Dec '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Have I noticed? I fight equivocation in myself all the time. Can't tell you how many times I've backspaced through "I believe". Why are we so timid in the face of such obvious disordered thinking as exhibited by the left these days?
Aug '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
They certainly have a powerful commitment to their belief in "stimulus". But it's not necessary for them to admit that their policies have failed, as long as most non-liberals see them to have failed. At this point, I don't think there is a whole lot of belief in "stimulus" outside of hardcore liberals.
Dec '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Paul, do you think there's a chance that they are entirely aware of the failure of such stimulus but continue to push for it as a way to buy off the voters? It's very Machievellian, but still a distinct possibility.
Aug '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
I don't know, but I do know people outside of government who genuinely believe in stimulus, and want more of it for no reason other than that they really think it will work this time. As to Obama, he could be clinging to his belief, or completely cynical--I can't tell.
Dec '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Neither is a very heartening option.
May '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Paul DeRocco
At this point, I don't think there is a whole lot of belief in "stimulus" outside of hardcore liberals.
Yes, it's a good thing hardcore liberals aren't behind the wheel of American government.
Wait...
In theory, Republicans could and would stop them. In reality, Democrats have already proven willing and able to circumvent Constitutional constraints to get what they want, and Republicans have a history of being suckered into Democrats' propoganda.
I'm not predicting another stimulus will pass. But the idea is out there, and I don't think such legislation is beyond the realm of possibility.
Republicans already gave the green light for more spending by raising the debt ceiling. Let's hope the Executive branch must consult Congress before spending at least some of that money.
It doesn't take a majority to wreck a nation.
May '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Agreed. It's called hedging. In linguistic courses, I was taught that women tend to do it more, presumably out of greater "social awareness" (greater sympathy). But it seems to be an ubiquitous habit these days.
I actually deleted the "I think" in the third paragraph of my post before reinserting it. I'm not sure why.
Jun '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
I guess the easiest way to punish Christian pro-lifers is to run up huge tax bills for their unaborted children. And make them subsidize Planned Parenthood in the bargain.
Dec '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Steyn describes the overspending as immoral, and we all agree, but it is not difficult to understand where this is likely to end up. What we are witnessing is corruption, of the kind that has created and maintained 3rd world countries in the 3rd world, but on a scale the world has never seen, with those kinds of special interests at work, what kind of outcome do we expect.
Jun '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
I'm not suffering from any illusions. The philosophical basis for all leftist thinking is delusional. Persistence in failure is known as folly. Their economic program is a proven loser. If we remain on this path, we will all die on the road to perdition. There, that was easy.
May '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
In the case of the government unions (AFSCME and NEA chief among them), I'd bet the bosses know there's not enough money to pay for their demands. I wouldn't count on leftist politicians to have any attachment to reality - they speak, and it is so! - but a good portion of their donors have got to be utterly cynical.
This is why sharp, brutal humor like this spring's Michael Moore debunking from Iowahawk is so important.
Dec '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Aaron Miller
It doesn't take a majority to wreck a nation. · Aug 10 at 10:40pm
This is so important and why I advocate conservatives taking an urgent tone of "DANGER on the Left". The Left has used it against conservatives very effectively for decades, and if we were reverse it on them, it would have the added benefit of being true.
I think it was Dennis Prager who noted that less than 5% or 10% of Soviets belonged to the Communist Party. Indeed, it doesn't take a majority. It only takes a small group of ruthless ideologues. In America, these people are almost entirely found on the Left.
Feb '11
Re: The Will to See Madness
Aaron Miller
It's called hedging. In linguistic courses, I was taught that women tend to do it more, presumably out of greater "social awareness" (greater sympathy). But it seems to be an ubiquitous habit these days.
I actually deleted the "I think" in the third paragraph of my post before reinserting it. I'm not sure why.
The King Prawn: In a broader sense, have you noticed how reluctant people are to make definitive statements? Everything is equivical. It's always "I believe" or "in my opinion" or "in my experience." Parmenides is my favorite (presocratic) philosopher because he wrote "It is necessary to say and to think that What Is is."
My wife still teaches a few college and grad level courses. One of her first instructions to students is to studiously avoid prefacing every other statement with 'I think." In her blunt words, "Unless specifically asked for your opinion, no one cares what you think."
Edited on Aug 11, 2011 at 10:02amSep '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
This is one of the issues that separates conservatives from squishy Republicans. The squishes impute way too much good faith on the other side. They don't understand what the left is trying to do, and therefore miss the mark when trying to counter them. Even now that we are seeing Obama's approach in action, many remain clueless.
Jul '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can be assured of getting Paul's vote.
Sep '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
Liberals have a child-like view that as long as one's heart is pure, all good and no harm will come from one's actions. This is an article of faith, and it's charming in children. I wouldn't deny that, for politicians and increasingly for pundits, political gain does enter into the strategic thinking, but this still coincides with an unexamined belief that they are on the side of the angels, and that that is all that counts.
By the way, what plans were we making based on the expectation that Democrats were going to recant?
Dec '10
Re: The Will to See Madness
barbara lydick
When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can be assured of getting Paul's vote. · Aug 11 at 10:26am
So true in the short run. But then Peter stops producing and Paul gets his fair share of a smaller and smaller pie. Eventually Utopian Societies have nothing to redistribute but squalor and misery.