Major Newspapers, |
Sunday, October 7. 2007The Philosopher and the FoolTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Remember- thinkers like Paul Krugman are the nuance people. Conservatives are the manichean overly simplistic people.
Apparently, callously cramming the poor into wretched housing projects, rampant crime, dysfunctional schools and providing economic incentives to destroy families qualifies as care and concern to Krugman.
Leftist are narcissist. They spend so much time telling themselves how great and good they are that they never stopped to ask if the policies they advocate actually accomplish their professed goals. The history of the last 40 years as shone that if comes down to a choice between the power and prestige of Leftist and the immediate good of the poor, the poor lose out. The modern political debate is not between those who profess to care and those who do not. The debate is between those who want the poor better off versus those who wish to exploit them for their own power. The Burkean conservative knows that functional individuals, families and communities spring from an organic complexity that central planners cannot duplicate. The Great Society programs failed exactly in the way that conservative opponents predicted they would yet the self-labeled compassionate left has doggedly tried condemned more and more of the poor to a social and emotional hell just to maintain their own self-image.
Exactly what I was thinking Shannon. The only thing I would add is that the left appears incapable of examining the failures of their policies objectively.
The Fool part you got right.
As for Brooks, his piece was one of two things... either "I've got a deadline; what the hell am I gonna write?" or "I've got a bug in my head that a good dozen or two people might share." I don't think anyone at the Times can write. Wapo either, for that matter.
The elites aren't wrong about the superiority of the welfare state ... it's failures are always caused by imperfect application and by lack of comprehension by the intended beneficiaries. As Jane Fonda herself replied to a student question about Communism: “If you understood what Communism is, you’d be on your knees every night praying that America becomes Communist.”
What’s happening, presumably, is that modern movement liberalism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, *even hypocritcally*, you belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other people's *ideas*, you fit right in.
There, that's more like it.
The key word here is "downtrodden." There are primitive tribal societies that believe no deaths are due to natural causes, but are always due to the interventions of evil spirits invoked by human enemies of the deceased. The leftist mind simply assumes that the unenviable current personal circumstances of any individual member of any group seen as inherently virtuous (e.g., non-whites, fellow leftists, women, etc.) are categorically always due to the malignant intervention of one or more representatives of an approved demon group (e.g., whites, men, conservatives, Chrisitians, etc.). This is simply taken as axiomatic, requiring no evidence or proof.
Krugman's core tenet is that “If you understood who Paul Krugman is, you’d be on your knees every night praying that America becomes more like Paul Krugman.”
As Shannon Love remarked above, this is pure narcissism. .
I find Gnat's comment both cogent and apposite. This is the perfect response to Krugman.
Krugman is 40 years out of date, just like every other liberal. There are plenty among the downtrodden who vote Republican these days.
Let me defend Liberalism, which comes from a great American tradition, Puritanism; the practice of forcing the People to virtue at bayonet's point.
Mark Steyn jabs Paul Krugman on his simplistic **heartless conservative assessment** by exposing the Dems' "phony poor kid" whose parents were supposedly too poor to buy health insurance. The 12-year old was recruited to give the Dem weekly radio response to Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, but in what has become a familiar story when Dems try to tug heartstrings, there's more to the story than first presented -- thanks to some real reporting by citizen journalists.
See PowerLine for all the links: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/10/018686.php
If the Left ever figured out a way to significantly decrease the number of "downtrodden" folks in America, they would decimate the size of their constituency, and consequently, their grasp on power. The Left needs to keep the poor right where they are. The Great Society failed because it was never intended to succeed. The "War on Poverty" was a war to promote socialism over meritocracy.
Paul Krugman and the NYT are a disgrace. |
SearchSupporterAlmased reviewed
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> |