Is it possible the Obama Administration is playing an elaborate joke purposely resurrecting every failed Liberal idea from the last century, just for laughs? Finally, a conspiracy theory with a punchline!
One can at least imagine Barack finally having a compelling reelection theme to run on: “2008 was a Gag!”, “It's 2012 & Now I'm Serious, Baby!” or “4-Mo' Years of Sidesplitting Slapstick!” Unfortunately, Obama and his mentally challenged crew appear as serious about their extreme leftist policies as a no-smoking sign on an oxygen tent.
By process of elimination, we must deduce Obama never heard of the notion of the “bottom-line analysis.” Either that or Barack, like Vladimir Lenin, has the cold heart of a true communist revolutionary who considers any human cost acceptable for building the perfect atheistic state. The entire Administration would do well to read “The Arrogance of Humanism,” by Dr. David Ehrenfeld. The message in Ehrenfeld's book is the need for humans to develop deep skepticism for any humanist ideas promising wonderful results with enough intervention, new technology or liberal theories applied.
Most importantly, Ehrenfeld insists we must have an “end-product analysis,” ie a bottom-line conclusion to judge whether ideas and policies are wise or foolish. Yet, how can any government rule wisely while ignoring history's ironclad judgments? The verdict of utter failure upon Utopianism has already been handed down, after all. Ehrenfeld sums up the weakness of modern Humanism, saying “...people are spending too much time and causing too much damage by pretending that our efforts in politics, economics, and technology usually have the effects we intend them to have...”
The Arrogance of Humanism
Ecological scientist David Ehrenfeld explains what lacks in so many attempts to better the modern world. His “Arrogance of Humanism” portrays a Western society run amok, untethered from traditional wisdom and common sense. Describing the entire modern world as steeped in Humanism to the point we no longer even recognize the fact, he separates modern Humanism from older definitions. No longer is Humanism defined as study of the Greek and Latin classics, but should now be seen as “the religion of humanity.” As such, it represents a human-based view of life eschewing genuine Judeo-Christian insights or values. And in this sense, the term becomes an analog of modern liberalism.
Ecologist Ehrenfeld points out even when mankind seeks to shepherd the earth, his plans often go awry. In staking this claim, Ehrenfeld contradicts the great modern conceit mankind greatly influences earth, and can even control the climate with a few superficial adjustments. Ehrenfeld is a passionate defender of the planet's natural resources, but not deluded enough to think we can always choose the best course, or even know what affect our decisions will have, longterm.
What Humanism best represents in Ehrenfeld's mind is an escape from traditional definitions of God and religion, and a relocation of society to the citadel of science, philosophy and technology where all power now resides. He quotes avowed Humanist, John Herman Randall, Jr., who describes Humanism in typical religious terms:
The humanist temper holds that men should place their faith in man himself – in man's infinite possibilities. This faith should, of course, be coupled with a realistic recognition of man's infinite limitations – of man's capacity for “sin,” for falling short of the highest he has seen. In a word, the faith in intelligence and in man is Humanism.
Ehrenfeld exposes the inherent falsity in Humanism in his second chapter, “Myth,” where mankind erroneously believes he can control “mind, body & nature” using the right techniques, ideas, or technology. In his third chapter, “Reality,” he lays out the fundamentally profound point of the book. Ehrenfeld describes what he considers a singularly important skill,
I want to consider the criteria that ought to be used in making judgments...For want of a better term I will call this process “end-product analysis.” End-product analysis is the necessarily informal study of effects that sum up many causes.
What Ehrenfeld is proposing is that no society ought to be engaged in any major undertaking without also measuring the impact such programs, designed under theoretical conditions, impart. He continues,
An end-product analysis may require some expertness in the preparation...But the analysis itself is more intuitive than formal , and it does not demand the services of an expert. In fact, expertness can be a hindrance if it carries with it a preoccupation with means, techniques, and short-term objectives. The basic requirement for such an analysis is the ability to distinguish short-term effects from long-term ones. What is needed is the firm conviction that the proof of the pudding is only in the eating, plus a powerful sense of perspective.
Undoubtedly we will all bring to mind many examples that illustrate what Ehrenfeld is discussing, because the effect he describes surrounds us every day. One example might be the taste of a meal at a popular restaurant. The owner and chef may have invested much in the kitchen, recipe books, and other elements to insure the food is tasty. Yet we have all been to expensive restaurants where the food was lackluster. Ultimately, there can be no more telling analysis of a restaurant's merit than the taste of the food.
Ehrenfeld warns against a humanistic liberalism that sees itself as godlike:
. . . deep within ourselves we know that our omnipotence is a sham, our knowledge and control of the future is weak and limited. Our inventions and discoveries work, if they work at all in ways that we do not expect, our planning is meaningless, our systems are running amok—in short, that the humanistic assumptions upon which our societies are grounded lack validity.
Ehrenfeld's insights ought to be applied across the board to all government decisions, for what is more important than the impact of state decisions upon the people's lives? After all, good intentions are never enough to justify any program. Therefore, two rules should be drawn from his book: 1.) The average person can give an intuitive and accurate reaction to almost any state scheme ever passed, if she will just use her common sense and intuition; 2.) Wasteful, unpleasant, or bad-result causing programs should be canceled at the first available opportunity. The danger of “unintended consequences” must be chiefly borne in mind.
Pre-Failed Policies: Just Add Hot Water
The following ideas or programs have been passed, or touted as desirable by the Obama Administration. But as any unbiased political observer can explain, Barack has yet to come up with an original idea in any big program proposals. He hews almost exclusively to theories developed in socialist or Marxist models. Most importantly, Obama seems to offer no major policy not previously failed in a similar incarnation in another country. Can Barack possibly be so obtuse or historically illiterate to not know this? Of course, Napoleon once famously observed, “In politics stupidity is not a handicap.”
Question: How many of Obama's policies has he carefully pondered for possible unproductive or even, counter-productive results? One gets the sense Barack Obama never bothers to trace possible untoward outcomes from his pet programs (either that, or he knows but doesn't care, or even wants collateral damage for some dark reason). Yet, Obama seems so convinced in the rightness of his vision he blithely trips along, costs be damned. He seems a prime example of Eric Hoffer's fact-blind ideologue described in the book “The True Believer.” But are any actions done by politicians without concern for long-term effects ever described as true “leadership”? This question answers itself.
Programs & Bottom-Line Analysis:
Obamacare: The purpose of Obamacare is to save America from bankruptcy and insure everyone, regardless of income.
End-Product Analysis: America was already functionally bankrupted when this legislation passed, yet the $2.5 trillion cost was deemed “savings.” Since bureaucracy and government always bring less efficiency and higher costs, can it make American health care “better” in any measurable way? Obamacare will reduce reward to innovators or doctors, so there will be less of each. With more users, much longer waits will result with less resources to go around. Of course “death panels” must be assembled at some point, simply given lack of resources. Even if decisions derive from computers impersonally using actuarial charts and broad patient histories, hard decisions will result that are today unfathomable. Tens of millions of Americans are still uninsured. What's astounding is this was a choice of free will. Worse, Obamacare might be the final coffin nail that really does bankrupt the US.
Permanent Deficit Spending: Trillion-dollar Keynesian spending bills were passed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Moreover, many important programs must be created or enlarged.
End-Product Analysis: Spending was commenced in the name of “stimulus,” yet not even logically connected to any central theory except congressional pork-buffets. If passed, unemployment was promised to stay under 8%, yet many economists now claim joblessness will be permanently double-digit. And lack of workers means massive state and federal tax revenue losses. Deficit spending always leads to loss of money value as does concomitant fiat currency printing create inflation. America's financial health must decline from these policies, there is no other option. Further, less funds will be available for defense and every other area as the economy sags.
Disarmament: The theory is if America nobly shows the rest of the world we mean no harm, and start dumping weapons systems, the globe will sing hosannas as it gladly follows our altruistic lead.
End-Product Analysis: Disarmament campaigns have never brought peace to the world. In fact, the Pax Romana (Augustus' Peace of Rome) in ancient Italy resulted from Rome's overwhelming might as compared to any other country. Any Utopian attempt to put America's military strength at the same level of any other country is bound to tempt rogue nations to act as if the US is no longer around to police the world. This is an exceedingly dangerous idea, especially as Iran is one state that could use atomic bombs against hated Israel, possibly starting a nuclear Armageddon. And Iran may already have the bomb, while it appears Obama has no plans to disarm them.
Illegal Immigration: Making instant citizens out of undocumented persons is how leftists care for illegals. These people live and work in America, and contribute mightily to our success, and so are default Americans, just lacking official recognition.
End-Product Analysis: A policy of naturalizing all who sneak in will reward breakers of federal law. This insures more illegals will enter over time, and at a faster rate. Further, the net effect will be to burden or even collapse state and federal welfare agencies, and possibly even entire budgets.
Government Economic Control: The Government is investing in large market sectors, and also creating enormous new regulatory bills to control industries. This is being done to save capitalism, and also punish greedy wrongdoers (evil-mongers?).
End-Product Analysis: The net effect of such economic policy will be a kind of fascism, where the government does not own industries outright, but still controls their broad decisions via rules and regulations. The upshot is these markets will become increasingly less productive and profitable, as new tax and regulations sap the vitality of various sectors. Tax levies will then ironically plummet. Investors will then look for other industries to invest in, or flee to foreign markets.
Taxes: More taxes receipts are needed to build up our infrastructure, pay down our deficit, and also help pay for new programs, while making the wealthier “pay their share.”
End-Product Analysis: There is no end to the State's “need” for taxes, they will always be spent for “important” programs. But studies reveal any income tax rate over 17% is increasingly resisted as rates rise. Further, the greater the percent of taxes levied against gross income, the less discretionary income people have to invest in capitalist undertakings. Therefore, the confiscation of every dollar will cause the loss of more than a dollar in the marketplace. Also, government taxation does not lead to longterm job creation, but always eventually shrinks the size of the economy. If the rich are overly taxed, they will eventually seek to move their wealth to a less confiscatory regime, which will implode a taxation plan based upon Robin Hood's motto.
Socialism: Socialism is a system collecting wealth from richer citizens, fortifying the poor in the name of justice. Obama has proclaimed himself in favor of this theory as his policies richly illustrate.
End-Product Analysis: There has never been a case of a longterm, self-sustaining socialist state. Since the theory of socialism is psychologically noxious and fiscally punitive, it backfires as it hobbles earners and rewards the indolent. Therefore, it's not impossible such a system could work except under compunction. As a result, full-blown socialism, aka communism has never been successfully sustained without a police state and attendant reign of terror to distract the populace. And socialist/communist regimes either end up changing, as did China, or refusing to reform and thus collapsing, as seen in the USSR.
Freedom
Leftists always desire to take the freedom from the people in various arenas of life. Supposed security is offered in exchange for these freedoms. Yet, as history has shown, only the free are secure, as only the free are independently productive. Also, once government becomes a god to the people, then arbitrary judgment and inhuman punishment historically always follow.
In 1962, Richard M. Weaver, the author of the seminal book “Ideas have Consequences,” gave a speech to the Young Americans for Freedom at a gathering in Madison Square Garden. Weaver said:
It is our traditional belief that man was given liberty to ennoble him. We may infer that those who would take his liberty away have the opposite purpose of degrading him. Too much is being said today about the dignity of man without realization that the dignity of man means the worth of man. There can be no worth of man unless there is an inviolable area of freedom in which he can assume the stature of a man and exercise choice in regard to his work, his associates, his use of his earnings, his way of life. Little by little this area has been traded away in return for plausible gifts and subventions, urged on by slogans. Now we are at a point where regimentation, which used to be suggested with apologies, comes couched in the language of prerogative.
We cannot afford to let the supposed experts and maddeningly self-righteous leftists take away our common sense and ability to judge government decisions via the end-product analysis. In other words, the impact or results of ideas are all that matter, not who came up with the policies, or what the intent of the politicians supposedly was. Our fatuous “leaders” have embarked upon an ill-fated voyage to the toxic isle of liberalism, expecting us to blithely sit back as they madly sail their ship of fools upon the ruinous reefs of socialism.
Now, more than ever, we must use our free speech to stand up and let our voices ring out against the idiotic, wasteful, ideologically blinkered and enslaving decisions of our new Marxist royalty. For, if we don't fight now for our independence, we may never get another chance to re-secure our ancient rights and enjoy the freedoms due a just and virtuous people.
