Posts Tagged ‘Ethics’

The Morality of the Left

Saturday, September 29th, 2012

What the Left Seeks

Listening to Mark Levin on Thursday evening, I wondered if the Great One fully understood quite what he was saying.  He went on a bit of a rant about the immorality of the left, and their willingness to bankrupt the country in the name of their Utopian dreams, but as I listened, I began to realize that Dr. Levin doesn’t understand the root of the left’s central motive.  As I listened to him damning their behavior and tactics, cursing the statists as immoral, I think he missed the whole truth.  You see, it isn’t that the left is immoral, or even that they are amoral, but instead, the left adheres to a completely different moral system with an alien motive at its root.  There are all sorts of moral systems, some religiously based, while others are entirely secular.  The question is always: What is the root of one’s morality.  For most people, morality is an expression of their fundamental values, and this is where the difference manifests.  Some have noticed that the left seems to readily ally with the Islamist front, both domestically and internationally, and to the degree this is true, it is because they share a central value:  Theirs is the morality of death.

It’s easy enough for most Americans to understand that the militant Islamists value death over life, and indeed, one of their now-deceased leaders made the matter plain:

“We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the difference between us two.” – Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Sharkbait was at least honest about it, but even had he been inclined to lie about it, his actions and those of his cohorts would still make the truth obvious.  Theirs is a system of morality that places the value of the paradise in death they pursue above the value of anything here on Earth, but since guaranteed entry into paradise is only obtained through martyrdom, they are quite motivated to pursue both through mass murder in suicidal acts of monstrous proportions.  Their rabidly single-minded pursuit of this end gives rise to the grim spectacle of a mother raising her children to be future suicide bombers.  This is a value base so thoroughly removed from what we in the West would consider “normal” that we have a good deal of difficulty accepting that any person, never mind a loving mother, could so callously send her children to their deaths. In falling prey to this naive view, it permits us to overlook the fact that the equally rabid left is no less committed to the cause of death, though they don’t seem to be strapping-on suicide vests at the moment. Or are they?

What separates the virulent statist left from the garden variety “liberals” is that they are equally willing to impose death and mayhem, to include mass murder, if it is in the service of their aims.  It is true that the average “liberal” is what might be termed a “useful idiot,” inasmuch as he or she is unwilling or unable to form the thoughts necessary to consider the ultimate meaning of their advocacy, so that they become true tools of the more virulent sort who happen to know full well what it is that they intend, and why.  It’s at this point that some of my more moderately conservative friends will interrupt me to suggest that I really couldn’t possibly believe this of some of my fellow Americans, and yet I will be blunt with you as I am with them: I not only believe it to be true based on the logic, but know it to be true based on their actions.

The drooling left composed of the dictatorial thugs-in-waiting are much more discreet in many cases, and much less honest than bin Laden about their aims.  They know that many of their useful idiots would abandon them if they fully understood the meaning and intent behind their actions, so that while they are no less enamored of death than their Islamist friends, they are much less willing to state it openly to the hearing of the world.  The left’s intelligentsia cannot wait, however, to inflict their vision upon the rest of us, and it is chafing them something terrible to wait to see if Obama is re-elected.  If he is, we might well expect them to try to have their way, and depending upon how you read this President, he may not be the least bit unwilling to go along or even lead them.

I am asked for evidence, and so I will give you a few morsels, of which you are already aware, but that you have permitted yourself to set aside as evidence of intent.  I would ask my readers simply:  What is the meaning of a mandated health-care law that destroys the private insurance market, imposes government-run death panels, decides who will get treated and under what conditions, and holds all people who work to pay for all people who do not?  What is the meaning of a health-care law that will, by its sheer budgetary gravity, wreck the whole of the health-care delivery system of the United States of America, that for all its flaws, had been the most modern, the most capable, and the most thoroughly life-giving implementation of health-care anywhere on the planet, and had provided more treatments, cures, and therapies than any other on the entire planet?  What must be motivating any person who knows this will be the result of their system, and yet goes on with it in what we perceive as defiance of the naked truth?

I allow that we conservatives perceive their desires as being in spite of the facts because I firmly believe, and indeed now know that this isn’t the case at all:  They know their system will result in disaster.  They know their economic practices are lies intended to destroy the country.  They know that their view of criminal justice merely lets criminals off the hook, while making their victims doubly accosted.  They know all of this.  I speak not of the useful idiots, who don’t know much of anything except that they want their “Obama-phones” or “Cash for Clunkers” or “EBT cards,” or their truckload of free contraceptives, or whatever they’re after on any particular occasion.  Instead, I am talking of the cloistered, ivory-tower intellectuals of the left, who fancy themselves geniuses of social organization, but who without the forcing hand of government could not assemble an afternoon tea for lack of practical knowledge and experience.  These are the people who sit about thinking over the problems of what to do with millions of intractable, un-rehabilitated conservatives and capitalists once the statists finally attain their end-to-end control.  Their answer is the same for this problem as for any other: Death.  Kill them.

When it comes to the environment, the radical left tells us in coded language that the Earth can only happily support some fifty to one-hundred millions of us.  What they do not state is their intention to reduce the global human population to that number, and the way to accomplish that will be…what?  They also tell us we must reduce our energy consumption, but how is that to be done without reducing our condition and standard of living?  If our standard of living is an expression of the pursuit of life, what must be the intention at the heart of the desire to diminish it?  What you will find as you study the radical left is that their every policy is not merely anti-American, but anti-human, and anti-life.  It is not merely the unborn who they wish to abort.  Their blood-lust knows no bounds, and their hit-list stretches to the limits of the globe.

You might readily understand how the Islamic Supremacists values agree with their actions, as well as their words, but you might still wonder what sort of value system constructs the ethos of the left.  You might not understand why their anti-human reflexes translate into anti-American sentiments.  These are people who seek the finality of death, not because they imagine themselves in a paradise accompanied by some arbitrary number of virgins, but because at their heart, they hate themselves in the most fundamentally thorough way.  These are the people who hate their own lives with the passion of the radical Islamists, but who lack the courage of their convictions.  The best analogy might be the depraved, maniacal man, who murders his wife and children before turning the gun on himself.  In a social and psychological sense, this is the motive of so-called “intellectuals” of the left.  It is as irrational as the distraught young woman who aborts her child because she cannot bear the thought of giving the child up for adoption, to live on without her in the care of other parents.  This, she pleads, she does from her heart, a motive she claims is born of motherly love(!)  but what motivates it is something else entirely: “If I can’t have you, no one will.”  We once institutionalized people of that mindset, but now they serve openly in government, and we have a society that has been rigged to produce bumper crops of them.

You might argue that I had been wrong about all this, and that the evidence lies in their “compassion” for the poor as expressed through their welfare state.  It is true that there is evidence within the welfare state, but it supports my thesis, and it can be seen in the manner in which the welfare state is funded, administered, and executed.  As lavish as our welfare state has become, it still represents a degradation in moral underpinnings that is lethal.  When a welfare recipient’s morality is reduced to “I want what I want because I want it, and somebody should be compelled to provide it,” what you’re really witnessing is a human being who has had their entire purpose in self-efficacy replaced with a government hand-out.  This person may be free to move about, to speak, to worship, and to own their persons, but they are no longer free. At the same time, all those Americans forced to pay for the welfare state do so only at the point of a gun, because it is to their own gruesome detriment to have such a monstrosity in existence.  Their standard of living is reduced, which means that their lives and their trajectories are diminished, advancing the leftists’ cause of accosting their lives. There is a reason that every socialist or communist revolution begins with its aim of destroying the “middle class.”

The favorite target of the statists is “the rich,” and they pretend that there is some natural dishonesty implicit in the accumulation of wealth.  They set about to destroy wealth wherever they find it, for the pleasure of having done so, but their reason is the same: An unending hatred of life.  A person of wealth has made it easier to sustain his or her own life against the circumstances nature may impose.  Wealthy people are every bit as subject to cancer or other diseases, but their wealth enables them to fight on against it with a greater arsenal of weaponry.  More treatments are at their ready disposal, and in the end, barring some unforeseen accident, their lives will be extended.  The truth is that we all have a finite amount of time, but what wealth permits any of us who obtain it to do is to extend that time marginally, but also to more thoroughly enjoy such time as we have, enjoy more frequently the company of those we love, and to pass along such wealth as we leave unused to our heirs and to the causes we value.  In that sense, the value of our wealth can live on in perpetuity.  One could argue that such men as Bill Gates obtain a sort of immortality because the foundations they establish can theoretically go on as long as society endures.

The institutional left abhors that notion.  The sort of people who comprise the hard-core left will never obtain wealth by creative, life-giving means.  Instead, they must trick and coerce, and the ready vehicle for such schemes is government.  It is this reason that has always led leftists to seek positions in governing authority.  They wish to be able to impose their schemes, and the pile of bodies they leave in their wake is a historical proof of my thesis.  From Stalin’s “Five-year Plan(s),” to Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” and now Obama’s “Forward,” they always have the same approach, and the identical means as their tool: The naked force of coercion and the threat of death.

When a man lies about his infidelity, you can easily guess his motive is to conceal the truth from his wife and to preserve his reputation.  When a man lies to all the people of a country about the results of his course of actions undertaken on behalf of the country, you might guess his motive had been to conceal his failures, while preserving his job.  When a man lies to the country about the whole body of his intentions, attempting to disguise not merely what he has done, but what he is going to do, you must wonder about his motives.  If a man’s plan is to destroy the wealth of a nation, and the evidence lies in his past performance, and in his continued advocacy of the same policies, there can be only one possibility:  The destruction of the country is the object that man seeks.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have been told that the radical left is immoral, but I caution you that they are immoral only by our standards and values.  By the values they hold dear, they are perfectly consistent, and unflinchingly “moral.”  Barack Obama doubtless views himself as a moral paragon, because in his system of values, diminishing America is the good.  America has been through most of its history the country of life.  America had been that place and that system of laws and morals in which men and women have been free to establish their own futures, by their own efforts.  It was this self-efficacious characteristic of the American culture that had made ours the most prosperous nation on the planet.  For you and I, who hold life as a value to be pursued and cherished, America had been our place.  Millions of immigrants from around the globe have come here, most in pursuit of that same basic value system.

The morality of the left recognizes in that America an enemy that must be defeated.  It must be throttled.  It must be diminished and bankrupted and ultimately abolished.  What they value is death, and for more than two centuries, America had been death’s most lethal opponent.  A life-giving prosperity had spread slowly across the land, but it spread only because its people had valued life.  In its relations around the globe, the United States had gone to war many times, always in the name of punishing the wicked, and always in the name of life and its prerequisites: Justice and Liberty.   It is sad that by his twisted moral standards, Osama bin Laden recognized in America a simple truth its own people have too often neglected:

“The U.S. loves life.”

 

What kinder compliment could he have paid our nation?  He thought it a smear.  He believed life a trivial matter. It’s among such men that life is always a disposable quantity, particularly the lives of others, and it’s why when Barack Obama says “there will be bumps in the road,” your curiosity should be piqued.  Those “bumps” are lives, Americans, but he dismisses their deaths as “bumps in the road.”  What moral system permits a man to view his countrymen in this way?  What kind of ethos views life as a trivial matter?  If you wonder why the left has an obvious affinity for the Islamic Supremacists, wonder no longer.  While the Islamists do not hide their contempt for life, the leftist intelligentsia seeks to conceal it lest their useful idiots recoil in terror at their motive. That is their grim secret.  That is the truth all their euphemisms are designed to shade. If you wish to defeat them, you must not hesitate to unmask them.

Advertisements

Nikki Haley’s Stonewalling on State Hire

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

Defending or Defensive?

I understand the Governor’s sensitivity to the question of her children, and the tendency of media to cause pain and injury particularly to Republican politicians’ families, but I don’t understand her refusal to discuss this case, which seems to be about nepotism.  What the media seems to be asking her is not about her daughter, per se, but about Haley’s own conduct.  She became rather angry at the mention of her daughter, 14, who works in the gift shop at the State House, but what bothers me in all of this is that while the media naturally behaves like sharks smelling blood at the first hint of “impropriety” among Republicans and conservatives, the reporter was not really asking about the Governor’s daughter so much as how she came to get the job in the gift shop, and whether there had been something improper in hiring her.  While I find it despicable when media attacks the families of politicians, and in fact, I don’t consider the families of politicians in supporting them, since we don’t elect the family members to serve, I tend to stay far away from discussing their families at all. I avoid particularly their minor children, but all children in general. It’s simply a ridiculous thing to do in all but the rarest of instances.  This may be one of those rare cases, because it’s not about Governor Haley’s daughter at all, but instead about Haley herself.

What the reporter questions in this video clip is nothing at all about Haley’s daughter, personally. Here’s the video, as well as the text version of the exchange(H/T Tammy Bruce):

At an impromptu press conference last week, a reporter for WSPA-TV in Spartanburg, Robert Kittle, asked Haley about her daughter working at the gift shop.

“Y’all are not allowed to talk about my children,” Haley responded.

 

Kittle pressed on, asking Haley if the story really wasn’t about nepotism – whether the governor had helped her daughter get the state job.

“None of that is true,” Haley responded. “That’s what makes me angry. Not only is this a story about my daughter, it’s a story that is based on false facts and none of that is true. Do not attack my children. Do not even talk about my children.”

Kittle then asked if the issue wasn’t about what the governor had done, not her daughter.

“I’m not going to talk about it anymore,” Haley said. “My children are off limits.”

It’s all well and good for the Governor to say to the press that her children are “off limits,” and they should be, but this story isn’t really about the Governor’s daughter inasmuch as it seems actually to be a story about Governor Haley and the insinuation of the reporter’s question is about the possible undue influence of the Governor in securing her daughter that job, roughly one-hundred feet from her own office door.  To everybody but perhaps Haley herself, this story isn’t about a kid working a summer job in a State-run gift shop, but instead about the influence of the Governor in placing her child in a job there. If we imagined for a moment that this had been her husband, rather than her minor child, the same question would stand.  Had it been her brother-in-law’s ne’er-do-well second cousin’s great aunt Imogene(any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental,) it might raise fewer eyebrows. When it’s the first-degree relative of the chief executive of the state, whether minor child or septigenarian parent, there are going to be questions, and there should be.

Frankly, I’m astonished that the Governor of South Carolina is so ill-prepared for the question, and maybe that’s the problem:  Did it never cross her mind that there might be something improper about her daughter(OR ANY RELATIVE,) obtaining employment in a state job in a location well within the bubble of the Governor’s security detail and watchful eye?  I’m betting that many Americans would love to have that arrangement to keep an eye on their teenagers during the summer months, but most of us cannot, since many employers forbid the sort of arrangement precisely because it gives the appearance of impropriety.

I’m not one who blows his stack at the mere appearance of impropriety, since I don’t care that much about appearances, although I am keen to expose actual impropriety, but so is the mainstream media, at least when Republicans and conservatives are the ones under examination.  This is why Haley really must answer the question, because it’s not really about her daughter, and it hasn’t anything to do with her family except by virtue of her influence.

There will be those who might think I’m being unfair in singling out Haley, or that I should ignore the story because Haley is a Republican, or something of the sort, but the truth is that when this came over the transom, it was given to me by a conservative worried about the potential scandal implicit in the matter.  Yes, fine, okay, it’s not absconding with the treasury or something of that nature, but the part I find disturbing about this is how Haley used the line “my children are off limits” to close off further questioning when it is clear that her daughter isn’t the object of this story.  It’s a question of character, and this goes to the heart of the matter with respect to the sort of nepotism that characterizes corrupt government.

Let me be clear: I am not calling Nikki Haley corrupt, and indeed, without further information, it is impossible to know for certain. If I were a reporter in South Carolina, I would ask some pointed questions about the matter, and I would do so in a way as to avoid going after or even seeming to go after the Governor’s daughter:

1.) Was the position properly posted on the appropriate state website and otherwise announced in applicable media?

2.) How many applicants were considered, and were they competitively evaluated?

3.) What were the screening criteria applied to applicants?

4.) Does the state’s job application require the listing of relatives also employed by the state, as is the case in many states, including my own?

5.) Did those charged with screening the application notice the relationship, and did that person or persons apply the State’s ordinary ethical hiring practices in evaluating the matter?

You see, this isn’t a family business, in which one can hire one’s kid without repercussion.  It’s a state job, and that means that somebody along the organizational hierarchy who is charged with supervising the employee is answerable to the Governor.  How did those in all the intermediate positions handle this application?  These are questions that ought to be answered by Nikki Haley, for the sake of the credibility of her office.  This petulant “my children are off limits” business is fine so far as it goes, but where it doesn’t extend is into a matter like this.  All these same questions are applicable had the relation been a sister or brother, or anybody else of close relationship to Haley.

None who read this blog would say that the Obama daughters should be given a summer job as a tour guide in the White House, because the stench of such a thing would waft up to the rafters.  In the same way, and for all the same reasons, we shouldn’t take Haley’s indignant dismissal of the questions as evidence of a defensive mother, as she intended, so much as the reaction of a defensive politician.  Assuming the facts of the story are basically accurate, it is easy to suppose that Haley didn’t give it much thought, and might even have figured it was a good thing for her daughter to take a summer job so close at hand, but the problem is that had it been anywhere else, nobody would likely have uttered a word.

One of the things we discuss a good deal on this website is the GOP establishment, and what I can tell you is that much of what you see and experience as a corrupt political establishment begins with things as innocuous as this.  Those who truly have a servant’s heart know this, and they studiously avoid the appearance of conflicts and impropriety not merely to avoid some statutory ethics rules sink-hole, but because they earnestly believe it is wrong in all cases to gain such advantage, even for one’s minor daughter, even in a minimum wage, summer hire job, just down the hall.

The truth is likely that Haley probably didn’t give it much thought, but that may be the most troubling aspect.  Whether a child, a parent, a sibling, or a spouse, our public officials ought not permit such things to happen, because no matter how one slices it, it stinks to high heaven.  The fact that it’s one of her children is irrelevant except as a simple fact in the case, but the unambiguous part of the story is that rather than face up to it and say, “You know, I was thinking like a parent, and not as your Governor, but I’ve corrected that, and my daughter is no longer employed there,” it would likely all go away, and people would understand it.  I could understand it, and so could most of my readers.  What I can’t understand is the proclamation that her “children are off limits,”  as a means by which to obfuscate the matter in which it having been her child, as opposed to any other close relative, is not the controlling or even vaguely interesting fact in the case.  Governor Haley, we know your children, and indeed your whole family is not the Governor of South Carolina, but in seeking employment, they necessarily carry a strong advantage over others seeking the same jobs.

This isn’t about the Governor’s child at all, but entirely about the Governor and her judgment in such matters.  After all, it’s not very far, ethically speaking, from a job for a relative to a contract for a friend.  While nobody is alleging the latter, still it is interesting to see the Governor try to obfuscate the matter of the former, and I don’t understand why some Republicans think this is proper behavior, or why it’s acceptable for Governor Haley to use her children as a shield in the matter, when it’s clear that this isn’t about her kids at all.  It may be that the Governor had done nothing wrong, and that she had nothing to do with the hiring of her daughter, and nobody at the gift shop knew it was Haley’s daughter who had applied for the job, and perhaps she got the job solely on an honest, competitive basis.  At present, we don’t know, and the Governor isn’t willing to talk about it.  Should we pretend it all away because she’s a Republican?  I think not.  While I have no intention of assisting the Democrat media machine in going after Haley, I also think we need at least a simple explanation, and just the facts will do. Nobody is after her kids, and using them as a shield simply isn’t acceptable.