"equal" actually means "unequal"
(The mechanics of political truth. Latest revision on April 2nd, 2011)
Q: Why was it okay for Obama to send air and ground troops into Libya (there must be ground troops with lasers to target certain "smart" bombs which are being used), while it was wrong for Bush to do the same thing in Iraq? Why is it right for Obama to use force to bring down the dictator of Libya but was wrong for Bush to do the same thing in Hussein's Iraq? Why as a senator, did Obama say that Bush had not sought Congressional approval, yet as a president did not seek the same approval to do the same thing? Why is Obama credited for assembling an international support team and the backing of the U.N., but Bush is criticised for assembling an even larger collection of support nations in his U.N.-approved operation?
Why does everybody in the MSM agree with Obama and criticize Bush II about the above?
Within the U.S., why can Wisconsin Democrats walk out of a state legislature, thus blocking a democratic vote in a democratically-elected governmental body, yet claim they did it to protect democracy in America? Why is the democratically-elected Governor of that state called anti-democratic when he uses his democratically-provided power to support the majority votes (the essence of democracy) in that legislature?
And, why does the MSM support the Democrats in this dispute, as well?
It's about a political agenda
A: It's called "rationalization for nationalization." This refers to the human ability to lie to oneself. It is the jet fuel in the wing tanks of the Left. To them, the end justifies the means. Liberals use it all the time to self-justify their shifting principles as they continue to attempt to change America from a democratic republic to a fascist monarchy. (There was no difference between Hitler and Stalin. Both controled the means of production and slaughtered millions of their own people in "work camps.")
You see, whether evolution was the methodology of God, or is an accidentally (naturally) created process, it works in more than one arena. Politics evolves, too. There was tribal dependency, and the chiefs evolved into kings. From kings, we get today's dictators. If you wonder why dictators battle with dictators, ask why kings battled with kings. The answer to that will be the answer to why tribal chiefs battled with tribal chiefs.
Then democracy evolved, and the republic. The democrat republic contained in the U.S. Constitution is the latest political species on Earth. It is a form which has exhibited tremendous dynamism, so represents a threat to the other political lifeforms -- versions of tribal totaltiarianism -- which have long held sway over humanity. To retain the protection of the king's troops, one must find a rationalization for rejecting freedom.
Conservatives almost never rationalize. They don't have to. Their rules for America were written more than two hundred years ago, by old white men who often wore wigs.
Since Liberals do not like those rules, because those rules keep them from having the power to reward their supporters and punish their political enemies -- and because changing those rules so they can rule as they wish requires amendments to the U.S. Constitution which are damned hard to get -- they are forced to find ways around that hated document.
Installing judges who rule that those rules don't mean what the words say is one method they use. Installing bureaucrats in government agencies who will create "regulatory" ways to violate those rules is another practice they find effective. Taking over education in America was a good idea, because it allowed them to trash the Founding Fathers and stop teaching students about the Constitution those men wrote. This led to students who could be sent to universities to become lawyers and judges, journalists and publishers, political activists, demonstrators and office-holders -- all of them proponents of the Progressive philosophy in the name of "equality," "justice" and "fairness."
What words mean ...
To a conservative, for example, "equality" of opportunity means "equal chance to rise or fall based on your intelligence, drive and luck." Intelligence and luck are gifts and chance, but drive is something else that is very American. Immigrants come here because they know freedom means you can create something for yourself and your family. To a Liberal, or Progressive, this kind of equality means, "using inequality to eliminate class distinctions." If equal opportunity has resulted in some men rising from poverty to wealth because they were very good at something and/or were lucky enough not to get run down by a truck while trying to suceed, that's a free life. To a Progressive, this is"inequality."
Equality, to them, means "guaranteed outcome."
If the subject is financial reward, the difference, to a Progressive, is defined by the dollars and property each group or individual has. That, to them, is where the problem lies, and the solution is simple. Robin Hood is the mythical director, here. You take from the rich and give it to the poor. When everyone but the political leader (Czar, King, Dear Leader, etc.) is equally impoverished, financial parity has been achieved.
What Progressives omit from their fantasy is reality.
When rich non-government-type people no longer exist, there is capital (tax revenues) available only for government purposes. There is no investment capital for private businesses, some of which do better than others. Government agencies do not run other government agencies out of business by doing a better job. Government agencies made out of the takeover of private industry cannot "fail." (Are not allowed to fail. See: General Motors.) In a Progressive/socialist/communist/faseist world, private companies do not operate to generate evil "profits." But, without capital and competitive drives -- and with equal pay for workers who do a good job and workers who don't, the dynamics, the energy, of competitive productivity are lost.
Today's giant unions are identical to government bureaucries. Equality, not reward for competitive excellence, is their cup ot tea.
Motivation to work is necessary to dynamism and creativity. If the motivation of reward for personal excellence is gone, then another motivation must be found if you're going to get anything produced, at all. What, besides money, will motivate people to do what you want them to do?
So, in every nation where this P/S/C/F process has come to power, the creativity was lost, because to avoid the danger of citizen-alteration of government structure, every aspect of life had to be controlled by those in political power. You only need one party on the ballot in a dictatorship. Even when they aren't behind actual bars, every citizen not in the government, and most of them who are, are prisoners of one kind or another. They live where they're told, say what they're told, work where they're told and die when they're told. That is the stability of economic, cultural and intellectual death.
The collapse of the old Soviet Union was the result of the Vietnam War, in the end. Just as with WWII Germany and the Civil War South, it didn't have the productivity to afford the process. The Old South hadn't built many factories. They could have, but didn't because they liked their agricultural estates. The rest of these examples couldn't and can't have a decent level of productivity. The system crushes dynamism. North Korea, today, is broke. Its citizens are starving equally. They are housed equally, march equally and informed equally by media which describe the world equally. (Magazine, TV, newspapers all say the same thing -- the government view.)
In physics, if there is no difference in electrical charges, no work is done. That is one of the fundamental formulas in science. A dynamo is about the generation of imbalance. When the water on one side of a dam is the same height (surface elevation) as the water on the other side of the dam, no electricity is created.
Bureaucracy distrusts change if the change offered is not added bureaucracy.
That is a perfect description of the country "modern" Democrats (big D) want. Both sides are equal and they control the dam. It is a perfect description of the country you are creating every time you march, donate to or vote for them. The national economy is stagnant? There are no jobs? All the life seems to have gone out of America? Our national debt is of staggering size?
Progressives are using redistribution tax buckets to equalize the surface water elevations on both sides of the dam.
How did this happen?
American voters did it. If your vote has given power to Progressives, it's your fault. Here at the magazine, we doubt that destoying America's dynamism was your goal. It happened because your schools taught you to be an idiot, your MSM, or Mainstream Media, twisted or omitted facts that would have tipped you off to what was going on and your popular culture -- music, movies, etc. -- has fed you a lifetime of propaganda if you were born after WWII.
It's amazing that there are as many conservatives as there are in America. As I have said many times, people here have been taught what to think, not how to think.
But, the news isn't all bad. The Tea Parties demonstrated some real muscle in the 2010 election. I suppose that's because the Progressives haven't reached the fascist (NAZI, or national socialist) stage of power, yet, so are limited to a small number of un-constitutional incarcerations, thefts of private property, brutal taxation of capital, destruction of industry by union and regulatory rules, and political assassinations
If the Tea Parties don't win, however, things will get worse. Your descendants will be slaves, just like the people in North Korea, today.
They will be the final victims of collectivism, or Progressive/socialist/communist/faseist "equality."
Here's a tip for you. Dictators love to build big things. Pyramids, coliseums, public transport systems and so forth. If you see that going on, take a close look at the project. It may be a dam which will provide you with low-priced power. Or it may be a windmill farm that sends you power that costs ten times as much.
Watch out for bridges to nowhere. Progressives love to build them with other people's money. There is no need for a destination, here. What's important is the transfer of money from people who have earned it to people who haven't earned it. This second group will decrease the number of people whose survival depends on their productivity, and increase the mumber of people whose survival depnds on the king.
© 2011 Oregon Magazine