Misogynist Enablers

Slate’s Fred Kaplan has weighed in, so it’s official: American efforts in Afghanistan were “doomed from the start,” and now it’s “over.” Okay, so now the Afghan misogynists can get back to their primary occupation of oppressing and enslaving women (the real “war on women”). Congratulations to the Taliban, Kaplan, and all of the other slavery enablers. You should be proud of yourselves.

The slavery enablers (mostly caring, compassionate liberals, but some conservatives too) rationalize their enabling by claiming that America should get over the idea of saving the world. For some, it’s too much of a sacrifice. Others insist that if we can’t save all of the world simultaneously, then we shouldn’t save anyone at all. This last rationale apparently is one of the Bizarro world’s principles of equality.

The very same arguments could have been used in 1860 to reject calls for the northern states to do anything about slavery. After all, if the northern states couldn’t save all of the world at the same time, why bother about some Africans in the south? But fortunately for those Africans and their descendants, the men (and women) in 1860 ignored the enablers of their time and ended slavery.

The sacrifices made to end slavery were enormous, but today we can’t be bothered. The women of Afghanistan are toast, and we are complicit in all of it.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Liberal Mind

Most people prefer to live in a society that creates the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people. History, including the recent financial meltdown brought on by big government and firms “too big to fail,” proves that decentralized arrangements, based on markets and competition, generate greater prosperity and less inequality. And, as if historical results weren’t enough, we’ve had over 200 years of economic theory explaining why a market based economy can be expected to work better.

Despite the historical and theoretical evidence, liberals and conservatives disagree about how we should organize the economy and society to achieve prosperity. Conservatives prefer a decentralized approach, but liberals dream more and more, especially since the election of Obama, of a society controlled by big government, complete with central planning and price controls (see ObamaCare). How is it that liberals ignore the historical and theoretical evidence? Is it stubbornness that explains their fascination with the idea of authoritarian government, or something else?

The moral psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, provides a possible answer to these questions in his book “The Righteous Mind.” According to Haidt, our views of right and wrong do not come from reasoning, but rather are based on intuitions. The intuitions come first, followed by strategic reasoning that justifies and supports our intuitions. Reasoning matters, because it may sometimes influence other people, but Haidt argues that “most of the action” in moral psychology is in the intuitions. Thus, to change someone’s mind about moral or political issues, it’s necessary first to appeal to the intuitions.

According to Haidt, there is more to morality than intuitions about harm and fairness. He identifies six psychological foundations of morality that people use to construct a “great variety of moral matrices.” These foundations include concerns about care, fairness, liberty, group loyalty, respect for authority, and spiritual sanctity. The morality of various groups depends on the ways and degrees to which the individuals within groups rely on the various foundations.

Haidt finds that liberals tend to rely on the care, fairness, and liberty foundations whereas conservative morality is broader, relying on these three foundations as well as the loyalty, authority, and sanctity foundations (which of course liberals tend to scoff at). Indeed, Haidt himself is disturbed by the breadth of conservative morality to the point of whining that conservative politicians have an advantage because, by connecting with voters on all six foundations, they appeal to voters in more ways.

The morality of both liberals and conservatives seems to share three key foundations, yet the two groups disagree on fundamental questions. The failure of liberals to recognize the evidence supporting markets and competition suggests that Haidt’s conclusions about liberal morality are incorrect. After all, if liberal morality truly relied on the care, fairness, and liberty foundations, liberals would eagerly support the market structure that would best deliver what they value. Sticking to Haidt’s own framework, a better explanation would be that liberal morality relies primarily on the sanctity foundation.

The sanctity foundation is the foundation that deals with religion and religious rituals. In Haidt’s view, religious practices serve to bind individuals into communities, and with religion especially, the binding involves some blinding such that once anything is “declared sacred, then devotees can no longer question it or think clearly about it.” So it seems that liberals have sacralized “big government.” And once big government is declared sacred, we can forget about appealing to either the liberals’  intuitions or reason. Liberals are simply no longer able to think clearly about anything that might challenge the sanctity of big government.

Haidt himself may not agree that liberal morality rests on the sanctity foundation, due to his liberal upbringing. He has come to recognize, however, that “markets are miraculous,” so his personal experience has reflected some degree of growth. But such growth cannot be expected, unfortunately, from most liberals if they have sacralized big government.

Posted in Economy, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s Iranian Non-Policy

In a strained defense of Obama’s Iranian policy, David Ignatius (of the Washington Post) claims that the White House is puzzled by Israel’s “red line” demand. According to Ignatius, the United States “has already drawn a red line,” but he doesn’t bother to tell us what that red line is. Evidently, the White House and Ignatius are keeping the red line a secret, which is pretty funny considering how the administration routinely leaks such information.

The pretext for secrecy is that “some ambiguity is useful in deterring an adversary.” I would have thought that ambiguity is more certain to create miscalculations than deterrence, but never mind. Ignatius also loves Obama’s claims that he has a “policy” to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that it’s in America’s national security interest to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Well, okay, but such statements are weak evidence that the U.S. actually has a “red line.”

It appears that Israel’s real issue is not red lines so much as “trust that they will be enforced.” Ignatius dismisses this concern, finding that Obama’s covert action against al-Qaeda should be proof enough that Israel can trust him. But trusting Obama on this ground would be unwise. As others have pointed out, the drone program was in place before Obama became president, and he certainly is astute enough to realize that if he reduced the program and America got hit again by terrorists, the Democrats could forget about the White House for a generation.

Netanyahu also has other grounds for doubting Obama. Everyone knows that Obama’s background is left-wing with a mentality stuck in the 1960s and 1970s. Obama demonstrated this when he negotiated a deal with the Soviets (oops, I mean the Russians) early in his presidency, as if we were still in the middle of the Cold War. Left-wingers are famous for their “blame America first” mentality and consider America as an oppressor on the world stage. No wonder Obama went on an apology tour and promotes the idea of “leading from behind.”

For Obama, to act is to oppress, so we can’t expect him to do much, although apparently he has directed the U.S. military to develop plans to attack Iran if it crosses the secret line. But this doesn’t prove Obama’s sincerity. Obama’s secret line could just as well be drawn to trigger U.S. action only after Israel has attacked Iran and only in response to Iranian attacks on U.S. assets. All in all, Ignatius’s defense of Obama’s policy is a stretch.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ezra Klein’s Dream

Ezra Klein’s new column illustrates what liberals dream about. In this instance, he dreams of the government imposing yet another tax on Americans (i.e., a carbon tax). Of course, this is one of Klein’s minor dreams; we already know that he primarily dreams about price controls and central planning (especially in healthcare, which accounts for almost 20% of the U.S. economy). And let’s not forget about the soon to be implemented death panel in healthcare. He probably falls into a faint when that topic is broached. Too bad the writer Philip K. Dick isn’t still around; he could write a story about the dreams of android liberals (although it wouldn’t be much due to lack of liberal imagination).

Anyway, Klein’s dream of more government reminds me of the disconnect, which always leaves me dumbfounded (I’m not too bright), between liberals’ dreams and economic reality. For example, liberals today dream of centrally planned societies despite the fact that history proves the superiority of decentralized arrangements based on markets and competition (e.g., more prosperity, less inequality). And, as if historical results weren’t enough, we’ve had over 200 years of economic theory explaining why a market-based economy can be expected to work better. So how is it that the liberal dream ignores this evidence? Is it stubbornness that explains the continued liberal fascination with authoritarian government, or something else? I’ll keep looking for an explanation.

Posted in Economy, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Middle East Meltdown

Gail Collins of the NY Times has written an amazingly empty column criticizing Mitt Romney’s comments about the recent events in Egypt and Libya. Evidently, in her eagerness to join the media feeding frenzy, she felt that anything would do. Without providing any analysis or insight of any kind, she labels Romney’s criticism of the White House as a “major meltdown,” apparently because he didn’t opt for “at least a brief show of national unity.” Well. So I guess if Romney had waited a few hours, then his comments would have gotten her seal of approval. Of course, the real meltdown is Obama’s foreign policy. Not to mention that Collins’ empty column represents yet another example of liberal desperation.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

ObamaCare And The Youth Vote

Slate’s Amanda Marcotte boasts that ObamaCare is already providing benefits for younger people, which in Marcotte’s view is good because it will help Obama with the youth vote in the upcoming election. According to Marcotte, the percentage of uninsured young adults declined between 2010 and 2011, the main reason being ObamaCare. So let’s see, she’s boasting about increasing coverage for young people, who, by virtue of their youth, are generally healthy and unlikely to need healthcare. Not really much to boast about.

Marcotte also adores the access to contraception that ObamaCare mandates (of course, she’s not talking about actual access, which nobody is trying to block, but is repeating the Sandra Fluke demand that others pay for her contraception). Contrary to liberal under-standing, contraceptive expense isn’t even appropriate for insurance in the first place; as others have pointed out, it’s the equivalent of including a free oil change every year as part of an auto insurance policy.

We should understand that insurance properly covers major, unpredictable, catastrophic expenses, not small and routine ones. When we buy insurance, we contribute to a fund out of which those who need it will receive payment. But receiving payment means that bad things have happened, so we shouldn’t want to take money out. When we pay for insurance, we’re purchasing peace of mind. The idea of requiring health plans to cover contraceptive expenses is another example of liberals’ failure to understand most things economic.

Posted in Healthcare, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Chicago’s Teachers

In an editorial (subscription required), the Wall Street Journal compares the $71,000 average salary of Chicago’s teachers with the $47,000 average salary of the people who pay for the teachers, implying that the teachers are ripping off taxpayers. The teachers indeed may be ripping off taxpayers, but supporting that assertion with reference to “average” salaries is a misleading tactic that conservatives use all the time to attack government employees. Using a simple “average” to compare the salaries of two groups is statistically valid only if the groups are similar in composition.

If the WSJ wanted to be objective, a better approach would be to compare the average Chicago public school teacher salary with the salary of teachers in private schools. If for some technical reason this would not work, then the WSJ could compare the average teacher salary with the average salary of a general group of private workers whose age, education, and work experiences are similar to the teachers. Until the WSJ and other conservatives actually begin to analyze government compensation issues rationally instead of emotionally, it wouldn’t be wise for anyone to put much faith in any of their conclusions.

Posted in Economy, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Obama Apologetics

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post praises Obama’s economic record since February 2010 (when he says the clock really should start) as well as the results we might expect for the 12 month period leading up to the November election. Although he tells us about all the jobs that Obama has added to the economy, try as I might, I couldn’t find any reference to the unemployment rate. You know, that one number that is perhaps the most relevant of all (which of course is higher today than when Obama took office). Not talking about the unemployment rate during Obama’s time in office or explaining why it’s not important pretty well shows that Klein’s article is just another piece of Obama apologetics. Nothing to be taken seriously.

Posted in Economy, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

College Tuition

Apparently this is how it works: 1. The government throws money at higher education, 2. Colleges raise tuition, 3. The government throws more money at higher education (total student debt is now about $1 trillion), 4. Colleges raise tuition. The liberals’ solution?  Price controls! Except that the propagandists evidently (as seen in this Washington Post editorial) have decided  to use the phrase “college cost-containment.” Ah yes, more Orwellian mind-control. You almost can’t make this stuff up.

Liberals must be drooling. Price controls in higher education will complement nicely the price controls that we’re likely to see after the authoritarians take over healthcare (markets and competition are not exactly featured elements of the liberals’ plans for healthcare). I don’t know the size of the higher education sector, but healthcare accounts for almost 20% of the economy, so we’re talking big-time central planning of the economy.

History has proven, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that a decentralized approach to the economy (i.e., markets and competition) is vastly superior to central planning. Yet, the liberals persist in going the authoritarian route. It really is unbelievable; it’s as if the liberals want stagnation and decline. Hopefully voters in November will reverse this trend.

Posted in Healthcare, Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Swooning Over Bill Clinton

Believe it or not, there are some liberals who are not swooning over Bill Clinton. The Onion seems to have Clinton’s number.

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment