See the Left’s thinking. It might be our future.

Summary: Seeing a movement in all its social and politic dimensions is difficult. These snippets of Leftists’ thinking – some fun, some terrifying – can give you a feel for what might be America’s future.

Dazzled by the sight of our glorious revolutionary future!

Dazzled by our glorious revolutionary future - Dreamstime-104953755
ID 104953755 © Andrea Pittori | Dreamstime.

(1) The Left hates America’s history

Bien pensant Leftist critics are appalled at the new film Midway (see the trailer). It accurately portrays the incredible courage of the American pilots, which they consider unrealistic. Worse, it fails to describe both sides as morally equivalent. America refused to sell high-grade oil to Japan to fuel its invasion of China. Therefore Japan was justified in its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. To a good Leftist, Q.E.D.

Rachel’s Reviews gives us a nice example of such thinking.

“It feels like something John Wayne or Charlton Heston would have been in the 50s and 60s. The problem is this is 2019 and such a jingoistic approach feels woefully outdated and simplistic. …There’s even a scene where a captured soldier tells the Japanese to f-off as he is thrown into the sea on an anchor. Groan!”

The Japanese captured three Navy airmen at Midway: Ensign Wesley Osmus, Ensign Frank O’Flaherty, and Aviation Machinist’s Mate Bruno F. Gaido. They were interrogated, tied to water-filled kerosene cans, and thrown overboard. For more about this, see “Midway: Tarnished Victory” by Robert E. Barde in Military Affairs (December 1993).

(2) The Left abandons multiculturalism

For centuries the Left mocked those who believed in universal definitive values. Multiculturalism was the prescription – belief that tolerance was the supreme rule, with everybody accepting the validity of others’ values assuming that they reciprocate. But now the Left has values that they consider the highest. They call them “human values.” Values asserted, without justification from God or Gods.

Asserting what are the highest values is heady, a kind of unlimited power. Like eating peanuts, it is difficult to stop with just one. For example, let’s judge the relative morality of dolphins and humans!

Computers Evolve a New Path Toward Human Intelligence Quanta Magazine. I don’t know why human intelligence is so esteemed. It just happens to be the one we know best. Dolphins exhibit a lot of bad human behaviors (young males will capture and rape females, dolphin pods will gang up into bigger groups to raid females) but on the whole they are way more altruistic than humans.”

Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism.

Yes, dolphins exhibit some human behaviors – including rape and altruism. But I doubt that any researchers have run a comparative analysis of us vs. them.

This is just a fun side excursion. Once in power. Leftists will set rules for your behavior, governing your most personal behavior. How you look at and speak to people. Your jokes, your speech. Kissing, even touching, will become problematic acts. How many children you have. Are there limits to institutions’ regulation of our actions? Probably not when we governed by people who feel empowered to carve Commandments in stone.

(3) Elizabeth Warren makes hubris tangible

Elizabeth Warren plans to radically restructure 18% of the US economy on the basis of some half-baked models – most of which contradicts work of other experts. But even if they all were unanimous about the plan, reliably modeling social and economic changes on this scale is far beyond the current state of the art. It is mad scientist-like experimentation on America. The scale of the unexpected results are certain to be massive. It does not matter what the particulars are. Why would anyone believe this is a prudent action?

As usual with such plans, the details are nuts. The magnitude of the cost savings are delusional. The costs are grossly underestimated. The cuts to payment rates will bankrupt a substantial fraction of the health care industry. A 6% tax on wealth is gigantic, as few assets have an after-tax return that high. It will force tens of millions of American families to give up their current insurance for the uncertainties of a government-run system.

We have been warned. I suggest starting with this: “Warren’s plan to finance Medicare-for-all pushes into dangerous and uncharted territory” by the distinguished economist Lawrence Summers in the WaPo – “Judged relative to gross domestic product, the Medicare-for-all program dwarfs the federal spending hikes of the New Deal and the Great Society.”

Here is why Elizabeth Warren’s health care proposal won’t work. The current system costs two or three times that of our peers’ systems, yet delivers equivalent outcomes. Expansion of US health care coverage is not feasible until our health care system is restructured.

(4) Elizabeth Warren declares war on the economy

Belief in the Climate Emergency – or even the prospect of extinction – is a heady brew for leaders, justifying them to take extreme and extremely bold decisions. That is, to wield power in a reckless manner. As usual, the poor will suffer the most. Rising energy prices – broadening out into inflation – hurts the poor the most.

Warren has only the vaguest idea of the effects that this will have on the US and global economy. But she believes in acting first, thinking later, and then regreting.

For More Information

Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you found this post of use, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Republicans and Democrats, about the Left and the Right, about ways to reform America politics, and especially these…

  1. Visions of America if the Left wins.
  2. The Left hates America and will destroy it.
  3. The Democrats show us the politics of ClownWorld.
  4. Two levers to bring the Democrats victory in 2020.
  5. Stoking hatred in America for political gain.
  6. The Left will reform our military until it breaks.
  7. The Left becomes revolutionary. Few realize it yet.
  8. Are there limits to institutions’ regulation of our actions? – Not for Leftists.
  9. The Left’s bold plans for America – and the coming crash.

Books about the Revolution …

… but just the mild next steps. Don’t scare the proles!

Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In by Bernie Sanders (2016).

Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution by Bernie Sanders (2017).

How Bernie Won: Inside the Revolution That’s Taking Back Our Country – and Where We Go from Here by Jeff Weaver (2018).

Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution
Available at Amazon.
Available at Amazon.

41 thoughts on “See the Left’s thinking. It might be our future.”

  1. I find it incredible and disturbing that anyone would even consider voting for Warren.

    Socialist BS artist. $50T here, $16T there, something about climate Armageddon and doing something for the children and liberals of the world.

    Already $23T in debt before she gets started.

    1. Ron,

      America elected Jimmy Carter as a float for the bicentennial – then forgot he would be president for 4 years. Reagan had Alzheimer’s in 1984 & we elected him anyway. The GOP ran Bob Dole in 1996, although he clearly wasn’t too functional (age 73) – and he got 39 million votes. The GOP ran a sickly John McCain in 2008 – with the clownish Sarah Palin as VP – and they got 60 million votes.

      We elected Trump.

      We want entertainment and big promises. Warren is as good a fit for that template as Trump.

      It shows who we are.

      1. Larry,

        “It shows who we are.”

        That could be, but Warren? The folksy lady down the street in the red sweater?
        I’ll stick with Trump setting whiny liberals hair on fire.

      2. Ron,

        “I’ll stick with Trump setting whiny liberals hair on fire.”

        Thank you for so perfectly illustrating my point: “We want entertainment” from our leaders. When we look back, remember your abandonment of citizenship – and your contribution to the death of the Republic.

      3. Ron,

        A citizen’s power consists of his integrity and commitment to the Republic. Voting is only a tiny part of that.

        When that vote is cast for personal entertainment, it means nothing.

      4. Larry,

        Understood. I voted for Trump for many reasons, entertainment wasn’t one of them. Trump’s a great counter puncher, liberals and their press get what they deserve.

      5. Ron,

        “I voted for Trump for many reasons, entertainment wasn’t one of them.”

        People reply just to what you said. In this case: “I’ll stick with Trump setting whiny liberals hair on fire.”

        “Trump’s a great counter puncher, liberals and their press get what they deserve.”

        I don’t know what that means. Vindictive? Punishing those who you don’t like? Whatever. It does not sound like you are voting for someone whose policies will make America stronger and better.

      6. “America elected Jimmy Carter as a float for the bicentennial”

        I remember those days. People were still shocked with Nixon and Watergate. Carter with his “aw shucks” persona was enticing. After his inauguration It didn’t take long for voters to become disenchanted with his incompetence. Telling us to wear sweaters and to turn down the thermostat didn’t go over well. The Iran hostage situation showed him to be a well meaning boob who couldn’t lead us out of a paper bag.

        That said, I fail to see what makes Warren a desirable candidate. Sure, she panders to the hard left, but they are the minority. Will moderates, who do worry about high unemployment and excessive taxation vote for her? Time will tell.

      7. Frank,

        “I fail to see what makes Warren a desirable candidate.”

        See etudiant’s comment on this thread. Warren has the support of the Leftist tribe. They consider her claims to be gospel, ignore her dubious history of faux-victomhood, clearly see the flaws on the right but are blind to those of their foes. Swap the labels – sounds just like a conservative praising Trump.

        Tribalism makes us easy to rule, divided and foolish.

        This is why US elections are decided by appeals to the neutral and apathetic center.

      8. Ron,

        “Your turn to be bullied by LK.”

        (1) Frank’s comments are cogent and well-reasoned, although I don’t agree with all of his views.

        (2) If you look at this thread, in this case I have already said that I agree with him.

    2. I’d like to hope that enough people will understand that if she’s elected that energy could end up being rationed, as in not being able to heat one’s home or fill up the car’s tank. Of course, some of us are more equal than others, so not everyone will be inconvenienced.

      1. “energy could end up being rationed”? If Warren gets to carry through her fossil fuel vendetta there won’t be lights anywhere but Washington DC, New York City, And San Francisco. Maybe Chicago and LA. All the grocery stores will be nearly empty due to lack of deliveries.

        Warren wants to be President for paybacks. If she gets elected Trump will shortly be executed after a show trial, or killed by an assassin who “can’t be found”.

        The people calling a “climate crisis” don’t have any idea of how the world economy actually works and what it can do. What it absolutely cannot stand is to be fragmented into relatively tiny areas because there is little electricity available and little fossil fuels for transportation.

      2. Logical,

        “she gets elected Trump will shortly be executed after a show trial, or killed by an assassin who “can’t be found”.”

        Today’s looney far-right theory. Weirder than most.

      3. “The people calling a “climate crisis” don’t have any idea of how the world economy actually works and what it can do.”

        Thomas Sowell once remarked that you can divide people up into two groups: those who have a “unconstrained” vision of resources, and those who have an “constrained” vision.

        The former believe that the “distribution” of the earth’s cornucopia is just a matter of political will. The latter recognise that (in most geographies) grinding poverty is humankind’s default state, and that wealth has to be created before it can be “distributed”, and that once government gets too large it hinders wealth creation.

        A lot of the Left clearly don’t understand the consequences of decarbonising the economy. However, I’m pretty sure activists like Roger Hallam (co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, and who is a comiitted Marxist) know full well the result will be widespread penury – but it’s hard to be certain. Leftists tend not be familiar with Bastiat’s “What is seen and what is unseen”. They really do think that when government does anything, it doesn’t come with a cost to the rest of the economy.

  2. “But she believes in acting first, thinking later, and then regreting.”

    I’m surprised you think she would ever regret anything. Her mind can’t process that emotion. She would only blame men.

    And all of her, AOC, Bernie’s etc insane ideas are founded on this underlying notion;

    “Don’t worry. You can demand anything you want, no matter how crazy, no matter how much work or burden is required. The white males will just step up even more, sacrifice more and take whatever burden we put on them, all in the name of ‘manning up.'”

    What happens when white, Christian males collectively lose their instinct for self-sacrifice? No other demographic worldwide has self-sacrifice as a trait, only white males. What happens when it’s gone? When white males develop even a quarter of the self-interest of females?

    1. Kaminsky,

      “Her mind can’t process that emotion.”

      I am skeptical of making such guesses about the internal workings of other people’s minds. My statement was polemical, more humorous than analysis.

    2. I think Senator Running Deer has demonstrated the she understands cause and effect. She understood that by faking a Native American background many doors would be opened for her.

      As to why she wants to leave the nation in an energy lurch, one can only speculate, but I suppose it comes down to power, as in the power to decide who gets to heat their home and who doesn’t.

      1. Frank,

        That pretty much says it all. I said something similar in this post, but took a lot more words to do so.

        Warren’s history of faking victim status reveals much about her. That so many Democrats (but few African American Democrats) don’t mind says much about them.

      2. “That so many Democrats (but few African American Democrats) don’t mind says much about them.”

        They want to win, and right now she’s their best bet, as candidate after candidate flames out. Creepy Joe is dead in the water and Bernie has a bad ticker. Gabbard did everything but pose in a star spangled bikini while holding a bazooka and Yang has been awfully quiet about his proposed VAT and free cash for everyone bonanza.

        Warren’s Medicare for All obviously won’t work, but her promise that “someone else will pay for it” (AKA “rich people”) is a siren’s song for many voters.

      3. Frank,

        “They want to win, and right now she’s their best bet, as candidate after candidate flames out.”

        That’s probably true as their motive. Oddly, selecting candidate because “they can win” is a proven route to electoral failure. Those anointed “winners” are often phonies who neither side believes.

        Winners are usually chosen because people like them, even if they’re considered hopeless. Obama and Trump are recent obvious examples.

      4. Larry,

        “Winners are usually chosen because people like them, even if they’re considered hopeless. Obama and Trump are recent obvious examples.”

        To be fair, let us not forget about Bush Jr.

      5. Ron,

        Bush Jr. was not considered a “hopeless” candidate. He came from one of the major US political dynasties, son of a president, Yale, Harvard B-school, gov of Texas, rich. That’s a perfect resume in the US today.

  3. Imho, the left is gaining ground because none of the claims of the right have proven true.
    Education is a function of admission to elite colleges, which have been bought for derisory sums.
    Productivity gains are monopolized by the employers while wages for the workers stagnate.
    Americans get kicked out of their jobs while getting a few months severance to ‘train their replacements’.
    Why would anyone vote for this?
    Not saying the left will actually make anything better, just that the right has totally lost credibility.
    We may be in pre revolutionary times.

      1. lol, serious Larry, you are the most disagreeable person I’ve ever met. Now, shoot the other foot!

      2. Kingfisher,

        “Larry, you are the most disagreeable person”

        Nane-calling as a rebuttal. I’m pleased that your 6th grade classroom has internet, and that they allow you to participate in such things.

    1. “Not saying the left will actually make anything better, just that the right has totally lost credibility.”

      Well put.

      I would add, the “family values”/traditional/marriage/churchy crowd has destroyed all that with almost no awareness of it. Tucker Carlson has recently talked about it for them. Dalrock.

      Pointless though. You can’t make people seen the sun at noon if they want to pretend it’s midnight. The left and right look identical to me in this way. It’s partly why people are so hopeless now.

    1. Ron,

      I’m amazed that anyone believes that these giant government jobs programs are anything but money pits. But then Failure to Learn from Experience is a defining characteristic of modern America, so it might work as a sales pitch. After all, we still have the War on Terror and (beyond belief) the War on Drugs.

      1. Larry,

        It’s hard to believe, isn’t it? Talk about screwed up priorities. Trillions for what? Chasing down 100ppm of CO2? Ten years to live? Really?

        Winter came early here in the dirtiest State in the Union, I can still afford heat. Crime and bad drugs are still on the rise.

  4. It feels like something John Wayne or Charlton Heston would have been in the 50s and 60s

    Well, the original “Midway” film starring Charlton Heston was released in 1976, so “Rachel” is off by about 20 years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_(1976_film)

    And for the record, the 1970’s “Midway” was far from some “jingoistic” propaganda picture. It did not portray the Americans as inevitable victors or the Japanese as bloodthirsty devious savages. Yamamato is shown as some quiet dignified sage and reluctant warrior. Pat Morita is in it as a sympathetic Japanese admiral whose sensible advice that could have won the battle is ignored. The film took pains to suggest that a lot of the events that led to American victory were the result of chance and luck, not American brilliance or Japanese stupidity. I don’t know how historically accurate those portrayals are, but they are definitely in favor of the Japanese side.
    And instead of the “kamikaze” stereotype, it’s the Japanese who are aghast at the American pilots sacrificing themselves in a “mindless suicide” as they call it.

    Hell, the film even created some ham-handed fictional love story to draw attention to and deplore Japanese internment. Though I’m sure the white male/Asian female interracial romance would outrage current feminist and racial sensibilities.

      1. I just saw the new “Midway” this evening. And I noticed that among the producers was a Chinese company, Shanghai Ruyi Entertainment. Apparently, Chinese investors provided about a quarter of the budget when Roland Emmerich came up short after initial fundraising.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_(2019_film)#Production

        It could be the Chinese producers wanted to bring more attention to Japanese brutality during the war. Indeed, there’s a whole digression of the Doolittle raid and how brave Chinese resistance fighters harbored the American pilots and aided their escape and then suffered horrific recriminations from the Japanese. An end title card notes how the Japanese killed 250,000 Chinese for aiding the Doolittle pilots.

        Despite all this, the film still tries to portray the Japanese side as equivalent and dignified. One Japanese admiral bravely declares he will go down with his ship while the maudlin music plays. There’s even an end title card saluting both the American and Japanese navies.

  5. Mr. Kummer, I suggest you review American history and the Constitution, while you’re at it. All this drivel is based on a ridiculous presumption that the President of the United States (a figurehead at best) dictates what is signed into law. This is fallacious and fearmongering view of our electoral process. Good thing Jefferson and Monroe saw things differently.

    1. Peter,

      “a figurehead at best”

      Every political scientist I’ve read disagrees with you.

      “is based on a ridiculous presumption that the President of the United States …dictates what is signed into law.”

      Worst Reading Fail I’ve seen in a long time. Try reading again, slowly and without the ideological blinders. It makes no such assumption.

  6. Belief in the Climate Emergency – or even the prospect of extinction – is a heady brew for leaders, justifying them to take extreme and extremely bold decisions. That is, to wield power in a reckless manner. As usual, the poor will suffer the most. Rising energy prices – broadening out into inflation – hurts the poor the most.

    But the utterly weird thing about this is that nothing she proposes to do will have the slightest effect on global warming. I really do not understand this. Surely its obvious that US unilateral reductions will in themselves have little or no effect. The US now does around 5 billion tons a year of CO2 emissions. The world is doing 37 billion and rising, particularly China and India.

    If the US does become carbon neutral by 2030, then if China and India and the rest continue as they are, the global total will be 40-45 billion tons. Versus 45-50 billion tons if the US continues as it is going.

    The difference on the climate, even assuming very high climate sensitivity, will be too small to measure.

    And anyone who thinks the rest of the world is looking at the US as an example to follow, and therefore wants to argue that by setting an example it will lead the rest of the world to reverse and reduce? They are hallucinating! The US is definitely not regarded as an example to follow in climate matters. Or, sadly, in much of anything else these days.

    1. Henrik,

      “anyone who thinks the rest of the world is looking at the US as an example to follow, and therefore wants to argue that by setting an example it will lead the rest of the world to reverse and reduce? They are hallucinating!”

      That’s an important and too-seldom mentioned point. China’s leaders have been outspoken about this, regarding US advocacy about climate and trade as means to restrain the natural growth of China’s power and wealth.

Leave a Reply to kaminsky Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: