The View From 1776

The Cornerstone of Liberal-Progressive-Socialist Ideology

One must start with a deformed theory of human nature to comprehend the rationale for the welfare state.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/20 at 09:27 PM
  1. There are two essential elements of human nature that the "intellectuals" ignore when they call for an elite to rule over the masses:

    First, under a twisted Darwinian logic, they argue that man is just an ape with an opposable thumb; that we are subject to and controlled by primitive passions and instincts so that we require a supervisory elite (that somehow escapes those limitations) to rule over and direct our lives. In fact, human beings are extraordinarily different from animals. The cognitive, spiritual, initiative, imagination, and altruism of mankind is so far above that displayed by animals that relating the two is folly. These distinctions are so great that belief in some form of Divine intervention is understandable--though not yet proven. The human brain with its extreme flexibility, and self-regulating mechanisms, develops over the first twenty-five years of life based on a complex mix of genetics, environment, the mysterious and sometimes random actions of bio-chemistry, as well as by self-direction; a lengthly process that creates a truly unique living being--vastly different from any other form of life on earth. Let's face it-- Most individuals manage to control and direct their so-called primitive instincts quite successfully. Indeed, the intellectuals who claim leadership are usually less capable in that regard! (For info on that read Paul Johnson and Thomas Sowell on "intellectuals"--as well as my book-"Common Genius.")

    The second area of ignorance, or self-interested bias, found in the intellectual elite is the belief that a high IQ and excellent school grades (that merely measure memorization skills and abstract thinking) are the major determinants of a person's ability. They ignore the many social psychiatrists who have recently called for recognition of EQ as an added measure of ability. In fact, there are many factors that make up a person's total ability. In my book, "Wasted Genius," I have outlined a proposed measurement of "TCQ" -- or the "total competency" a person possesses and/or develops. Most of history's great inventors and originators had more of the non-IQ capabilities than so-called test taking smarts. The obvious conclusion is that many of our elites claim of superiority is unfounded.

    Unfortunately, our leading colleges fill their seats with the abstract thinking intellects who, outside of the physical sciences, are the least capable for most of society's needs. It is arguable that those highly intelligent graduates of our leading schools provide less benefit to our nation than the average graduates who create and direct most of the businesses that feed us all. Ironically, America is being ruined by "The Best and Brightest."

    A third area where our over-educated elite misdirect us is not concerned with "Human Nature" but with simple economics--it has to do with "the random walk," or "common knowledge." In an open free economy, the great number of new ideas that spring from the masses creates innovation far beyond what a managed government led system can possibly come up with. Plus, each motivated entrepreneur tests their idea and the "bad" ones fail, and the "good" ones spread and prosper.

    This compelling feature of free economies is built on a citizenry empowered by their free will, imagination, and persistence, unshackled by a ruling aristocracy or stifling regulation. Clearly, any intellectual elite that seeks to rule top-down can only hurt such a nation! Indeed, they will usually support the "bad" ideas, and persist in the vain attempt to make them successful. At best, they will limit the innovative power of the people.

    The reason liberal-progressive-socialists demean our human nature and scoff at our spiritual faiths is that they want to undermine all of the very ennabling characteristics of a free people and thus justify their role as a ruling class. That means, in other words, that such an arrogant ruling class will work precisely against the best interests of the nation--stifling the potential of their people, bankrupting the economy, debasing the integrity and self-reliance of the voters, and bringing on the Decline of the country--all to further their unbridled lust to force their abstract theories and utopian social/economic agendas on all of us.
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/21  at  11:37 AM
  2. The following is a comment submitted by Richard Ong:

    That was a disastrous watershed in human affairs. No one in prior times expected the sovereign to supply individual needs. After the French Revolution the idea took hold that it was otherwise, as you point out. Now, in the U.S. the political class think of a particular session of Congress as having been "productive," if I remember the adjective correctly, because healthy quantities of legislation were passed. The idea that a session would be a "successful" one because NO legislation was passed would be laughed at by the political class. The idea that Congress should spend its time only on repealing laws would have them in hysterics.

    The urge to do something is irresistible. As was, by way of comparison, the intervention in Libya. Budget problems, economic problems, and decades of impulsive intervention overseas should have made Libya a slam dunk case for letting Europeans handle problems in their own back yard.

    But, no. Libya just HAD to happen and the gravitational pull of the problems there just turned official brains to mush and made officials cry as one voice, "Intervention!"

    It was pathetic. My freshman biology professor demonstrated frog thinking by dropping a piece of chalk in front of a frog. The frog pounced on it before spitting it out, showing that the frog responded to movement not a determination that the object was real food.

    That's what Libya was. Something that stimulated Mr. Obama's autonomic nervous system.

    Moral: the liberal cannot not intervene. Anywhere.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/21  at  02:58 PM
  3. I could not agree more with Mr. Ong's points. The Libya point is especially well taken because our involvement in that carnage was absolutely unnecessay, costly, and may turn out to be detrimental to our national interests depending on who takes over power there.

    Obama's excuse was "to save lives" and then the allied forces bombed, burned and strafed thousands of Libyans, extending the bloodshed over many months. As Ong states, the liberal big government thinking elite just have to intervene in everything. It is useful to recall that from 1620-1900, for almost 300 years, America prospered greatly with virtually no government or regulation.

    I have often wondered, since the last dozens of Congress have passed thousands of laws and regulations, how can we possibly need more? I believe one of the Republican candidates suggests a part-time Congress, meeting for only half a year, and only every other year. If they would do that, and repeal two laws for every new one, we might see some progress!
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/21  at  04:16 PM
  4. It is amazing that where one person sees blue, another claims to see red!

    Ong, Greene and Brewton (above) appear to be making the ridiculous argument that Obama was in favor of intervention in Libya while the conservatives were not! If you can cast your memories back a scant nine months, it was the hard right in congress (McCain, et. al.) that were screaming for "boots on the ground" and castigating Obama for "leading from behind." To this day you hear Hannity, Limbaugh, and similar partisans implying that Obama is weak on intervention.

    When the overthrow of the vicious Gaddaffi regime was carried out by native Libyans, without intervention - Iraq/Bush style - and occurred without a single American life lost, the right was outraged that somehow American power had been "dissed," and that American military might was cast into shadow by allowing the leadership of NATO and France in this matter to take precedence over a US physical intervention.

    And here we have Greene, Ong and Brewton now claiming Obama was too interventionist!!! I don't believe it!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/23  at  11:20 AM
  5. So, it isn't "one" person seeing blue and "one" seeing red-- It's actually three seeing red, and only one "claiming" to see blue! Majority rules!!!

    Merry Christmas to all . .

    (BTW, no one on this blog claimed Iraq was the right thing to do--Bush was also an interventionist. Only Bachman, Palin, and Paul, true political libertarians, would avoid such entanglements.)
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/23  at  11:45 AM
  6. Bill,

    With regard to your query (post #18, http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/comments/2816/ ), I must be
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/30  at  08:00 PM
  7. Thomas,

    For once, I disagree with your choice of title and its one sentence modifier; according to which the key to
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/30  at  08:02 PM
  8. Bill,

    At least one person on this blog claimed Iraq was the right thing to do. If we had it to do over today and with no better information regarding the Iraqi threat, I would still favor the invasion as I did then. I did not agree with how the Iraqi occupation and disengagement was handled in every particular, but I agreed with what we did and how we did it (mostly). If I fault it at all, it was in not being sufficiently aggressive to finish what was started, and in bowing moronically to Muslim
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/30  at  08:06 PM
  9. J. Jay,

    As usual, you have both factoids and timeline scrambled. McCain made no mention of Libya prior to Obama commenting on his desire to get involved. Juan, in his full
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/30  at  08:07 PM
  10. Bob--we agree on ther Middle east-- Perhaps in 10 years we will know better whether the Iraq invasion was wise, but for the moment I believe it was a good gamble to gain a threshold for freedom and to upset the terrorists.

    I just wish Dubya had worked harder to stop Fannie Mae and Barney Frank et al. from bringing on the financial crisis. Those Goldman Sachs apppointees to the Treasury Department were a common failing of all our recent Presidents.
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/30  at  08:58 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.