A Progressive Republican?

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, I just read where New Jersey Governor Christie signed into law a ban on gay conversion therapy (the only other state to enact such a law is California).

IM:  According to Christie, a Roman Catholic, gays are born gay and that therapy to convert them from gay to heterosexual can lead to depression, suicide, and so forth.

Old Gadfly:  Is there evidence to support this claim?

IM:  No.  The claim is based on anecdote and speculation.  But there is evidence that a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation can lead to mental disorders and suicide.  A study in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, involving a nation-wide sample, concluded

The findings from our study show that they [gay men, lesbians, and bisexual men and women] are more likely to have mental health problems and to attempt suicide.  Although not specifically examined in our paper, these findings may be one manifestation of minority stress.  Regardless of the etiology, sexual minorities are clearly a population vulnerable to severe and, in some cases, life-threatening mental health outcomes.[1]

Old Gadfly:  If this is true, then I can appreciate why some parents might be inclined to encourage conversion therapy for their children.  However, the conclusion in the article you just quoted says sexual minorities are “more likely” to attempt suicide.  Isn’t this finding based on “self-reporting” by those who participated in the study?

IM:  Yes.  And your question relates to a controversy regarding a study by Dr. Robert Spitzer.  Who is Dr. Spitzer?  Spitzer, a psychiatrist, led the campaign in the 1970s to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the psychiatric Diagnostics and Statistics Manual, used for diagnostic and treatment protocols.  At the time, Spitzer believed homosexuality was a genetic predisposition and thus should not be treated as a disorder.  Years later, he conducted a study to see if it was possible for those who voluntarily sought reparative (or conversion) therapy to change from a homosexual to heterosexual orientation.  He concluded that there is evidence that change can happen.

AM:  I can imagine the study offended the politically active gay community.

IM:  Absolutely.  Critics claimed “self-reporting,” which served as the basis for collecting data in the study, doesn’t prove anything.

Old Gadfly:  Then, since most psychotherapy is based on self-reporting, it could follow that any form of psychotherapy is a pseudo-science.  Didn’t Spitzer issue an apology for the study?

IM:  Yes, supposedly, a pro-gay nonprofit called Truth Wins Out, received an exclusive copy of the letter of apology, which served as the basis for a highly spun New York Times article.

Old Gadfly:  What’s your take on the apology?

IM:  According to the Times article, Gabriel Arana, a gay man who was nominated for Spitzer’s study but did not participate, visited Spitzer to confront him about the study.  At the time, Spitzer was very vulnerable himself.  He was turning 80, suffered from Parkinson’s disease, and had lost his icon status within the field of psychiatry, especially stemming from the barrage of criticism about his conversion study.  Arana emotionally converted Spitzer, resulting in a letter of apology.  Here is a link to Arana’s testimonial about “ex-gay therapy.”  I read it and concluded that Arana struggled more with “choice.”  Also, I found it strange, yet profoundly significant, that none of those individuals who actually participated in the study later confronted Spitzer to challenge the results of the study.

AM:  If Arana and his anti-conversion therapy cohort believe their orientation is genetic and not a matter of choice, then perhaps pedophilia is also a genetic predisposition and such behavior by priests in the Catholic Church should be defended by the gay community.

Old Gadfly:  The Catholic Church scandal is an example of a potentially distorted narrative.

AM:  Why do you say that Gadfly?

Old Gadfly: In the summer of 2002, according to former 25-year CBS newsman, Bernard Goldberg, a CNN producer explained to him that while there were a couple of high profile cases of pedophilia (a couple of men raping an eight-year old), the situation was overwhelmingly about “gay priests molesting fifteen- and sixteen year-old boys.  Those are the facts, and they are indisputable.  It’s just amazing how people around here are not getting it.”[2]   In other words, the media chose to spin it as pedophilia to shield the overwhelming gay component.  Goldberg went on to document how individuals who do not support the gay agenda are targeted.  For example, Dr. Laura Schlessinger was punished for her position on same sex unions and adoption.[3]     

IM:  Earlier today, Fox News reported another punishment case for views contrary to the gay agenda.  In New Mexico, a same-sex couple approached a photographer to take photographs of their civil union ceremony.  The photographer declined the request due to religious views.  While the same-sex couple immediately arranged another photographer, the choice by the first photographer was apparently too offensive.  So, the same-sex couple filed a discrimination complaint, and won a human rights ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court, forcing the first photographer to pay $7,000 in legal fees incurred by the same-sex couple.

Old Gadfly:  The Schlessinger and photographer cases are examples of Hayek’s argument about the end of truth as a condition of totalitarianism.  But, let’s get back to actual science and evidence.  Is there any evidence on suicide rates for gay, lesbian, and bisexual men and women?

IM:  Unfortunately, yes.

AM:  Why unfortunate?  Because the evidence does not support the Canadian study that gays, lesbian, and bisexual men and women are more vulnerable to suicide?

IM:  No, because this population is in fact more vulnerable, even without conversion therapy.  There is a lot of research seeking to understand this phenomenon, and the evidence indicates youths within this population are five times more likely than heterosexuals (21.5% versus 4.2%) to attempt suicide.  Yet, despite evidence contrary to his notions, Christie still banned conversion therapy.

AM:  Christie is not a stupid man.  Why would he do this?    

IM:  I read a Huffington Post article on this topic, where Christie was quoted to say, “I also believe that on the issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards. . . . I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate."  Therefore, these notions justified government intervention to deny individuals the freedom to make their own choices.

Old Gadfly:  I agree with your assessment, IM, on the impact of Christie’s decision.  However, it may be more difficult to answer AM’s question as to why Christie made this decision.  Most likely, he made it for political capital in upcoming elections, as opposed to the actual science behind conversion therapy.  If true, then this vulnerable population is a mere pawn in a political chess game.  More broadly and strategically, however, Christie’s behavior is dangerous because it reflects a progressive orientation that sees government as more knowledgeable in how individuals should behave within a society.  Ayn Rand cautioned against this progressive rationale in her chapter on the “Nature of Government” in The Virtue of Selfishness.  Here is an important excerpt:

Now consider the extent of the moral and political inversion in today’s prevalent view of government. Instead of being a protector of man’s rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim—so that we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

            AM:  I did not appreciate Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness when I was first exposed to it in a philosophy course at the United States Air Force Academy in the late 60s.  Now I do.  As a young girl, Rand actually witnessed Lenin’s centrally planned government take control of her father’s pharmacy business.  The Soviet collectivist government believed Rand’s father “did not build” his business—it belonged to the people.  Now, we hear the President of the United States make similar proclamations.

            IM:  Add to this an Administration that slow rolls Congress in trying to figure out what happened at Benghazi, in Fast and Furious, in the IRS conservative targeting practice, in targeting journalists, and so forth, and we clearly see a government that is free to do anything it pleases. 

AM:  This week, the Justice Department brought suit against Texas for their voter ID legislation.

            Old Gadfly:  In a way, Holder and his lieutenants are sending a message that they must provide permission for the way American citizens express their most fundamental right, even though 71% of American citizens favor voter ID. 

AM:  Rand’s prophesies about the dangers of progressivism may be the reason the progressive media elite ignored the recent movie productions of her book, Atlas Shrugged.  The theme is all about “the ultimate inversion,” where the government does anything it pleases.

Old Gadfly:  Do you think there is an attempt to use brute force to keep Obamacare alive?  There is nothing voluntary about it, unless you are part of a privileged class that has been exempted from compliance, in other words, granted permission not to comply.

AM:  Perhaps Christie’s coziness with Obama explains the progressive ban on conversion therapy.

          

---

[1] Bolton, S., and Sareen, J.  (2011).  Sexual orientation and its relation to mental disorders and suicide attempts:  Findings from a nationally representative sample.  The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(1), 35-45.

[2] As cited in Bernard Goldman, Arrogance:  Rescuing America from the Media Elite, (New York, NY:  Warner Books, 2003), p. 166.

[3] Ibid, p. 169.

Shut It Down

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, our nation is asleep and in the throes of a nightmare.  We’re becoming mentally and emotionally paralyzed from the constant droning about the recovering economy, distractions from phony scandals, and obstruction from Republicans.  I say:  shut it down!

Old Gadfly:  Shut down what?

AM:  Shut down the nightmare.

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  How?

AM:  Shut down the Obamacare fiasco or the federal government.  We are rapidly approaching September 30, the deadline for a continuing resolution to fund the federal government.  The dilemma is that Republicans want to defund Obamacare while essentially funding other programs.  Obama has threatened to veto such a bill. A veto would then “shut down” the government. Such a result would be blamed on Republicans.

Old Gadfly:  Why would Republicans get blamed if Obama has an opportunity to compromise—something he keeps badgering Republicans to do?  Besides, Obamacare is still very unpopular with the public—premiums have already increased and will continue to rise significantly, Obama is granting waivers and subsidies for special interest or “privileged” groups in violation of the law, and he has delayed implementing provisions of the law, in violation of the law (among a list of many other issues with Obamacare).  It can’t always be “my way or the highway.”

AM:  All good points, Gadfly.  However, Obama and Democrats have proven to be disingenuous in this matter.  What is ironic is that Obama and the Democrat caucus in both houses of Congress deserve the credit (or blame) for creating such a monster.  Not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted for Obamacare.  Now, with all of his broken promises, implementation problems, and burdens placed upon the American public, Obama and Democrats absurdly expect Republicans to keep feeding this monster.

IM:  Perhaps Obamacare and its adverse impact on employment and the growing entitlement class is part of a more sinister plan?

Old Gadfly:  How so, IM?

IM:  It’s called the Cloward-Piven strategy.  Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, both sociologists and political activists, published their strategy in a May 1966 article in The Nation.  The article was entitled, “The Weight of the Poor:  A Strategy to End Poverty.”  The idea was to overload the public welfare system to cause a financial crisis and then to blame it on capitalism.  This manufactured set of circumstances would then allow the political elite in power to substitute the failed capitalist system with socialism in the form of a new welfare system that guaranteed annual income, ultimately ending poverty.  A good indication as to how this has been happening over time is captured in the following chart, using federal budget data that compares the percentage of the federal budget that has been allocated to defense versus human resource programs (entitlement programs).  Notice the steep incline after the article was published.

Old Gadfly:  To understand these developments, it is important to grasp the ideological basis that underwrites them.  The progressive or modern liberal concept called poverty has been an enduring justification for social justice in the form of redistribution of wealth, and is closely aligned with Karl Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism.  Leon Trotsky admired Marx’s approach as a “scientific classification of human societies in the development of their productive forces and the structure of the relations of ownership, which constitute the anatomy of society.”  Dialectical materialism presumes human advancement through epochal crises as history marches forward.

AM: Obama keeps emphasizing crises; and, “Forward” was Obama’s slogan in the last campaign. 

IM:  Absolutely.  And, I would suggest that Obama’s claim to being the most transparent Administration in history refers to his vision, not his actions.  His vision is to transform America from a liberal democracy founded as a Constitutional Republic into a socialistic nation governed by a very powerful central government. 

Old Gadfly:  Obama sees an opportunity to bring into reality Woodrow Wilson’s early attempts to do the same thing.  Wilson completely subscribed to Marx’s dialectical materialism and published his own theory called historicism.  Wilson’s ideology fueled a strong progressive agenda to create a large, central government to promote social justice.  There is a wealth of evidence to track these developments.  For example, Ronald Pestritto has brilliantly analyzed and evaluated Wilson’s progressive efforts in Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism.  

I think the spiritual emptiness of dialectical materialism may have spawned the existentialism movement that started in the late 19th- and early 20th-century and permeated Western Europe.  In other words, dialectical materialism did not inspire nor feed spiritual needs—that is, a person’s sense of personal value, such as the need for belongingness, self-esteem, and self-actualization argued by Abraham Maslow.

AM:  These are heavy thoughts, Gadfly.  Yet, I can see why it is urgent to check the current cultural flow that seems to reflect a growing population hypnotized by a “free lunch from Obama” dream.

IM:  For the common American citizen, trying to understand what is going on in our nation may explain why the national mood is becoming more melancholic.

Old Gadfly:  Now that we have discussed some of the public reaction to the direction our nation is headed, let’s get back to the merits of shutting down the government.

IM:  I would start with the notion that we have allowed our federal government to incrementally get larger and larger, and thus more costly over time.  For example, in our last discussion we looked at a chart that compared the cost of government in relation to the Gross Domestic Product.  What the chart does not reveal is the actual cost of the federal government.  I did some analysis and discovered the cost per person in constant dollars was about $600 in 1933.  Today, the cost is about $12,000 per person.  This comparison says we have allowed the cost of government to increase 20 times greater than in 1933.  Why is the cost of government so expensive today?  Do we now have 20 times more programs and services?

AM:  I’ll be blunt:  the federal government has become a self-licking ice cream cone.  Unions have reinforced this notion.  We know that one kind of market failure is called monopoly.  Unions are a form of monopoly.  Yet, of all the working sectors, the highest concentration of union membership is in government.  The following chart is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Further, if we follow the money trail on “stimulus” spending, we would find a significant amount went to unionized sectors.  Detroit’s bankruptcy is a classic example of the unsustainability of a self-licking ice cream cone.  And, those who promote such absurdity expect the federal government to bail them out.  Are we fools?  Where does the federal government get the money for bailouts?  They take it from us in the form of taxes.  They play and we pay.  How stupid are we?

IM:  Why stop at defunding Obamacare?

Old Gadfly:  You have a point.  Instead of being dissed by the cavalier suggestion of phony scandals, perhaps Republicans should delay funding to organizations associated with the obstruction of justice.

AM:  I think what I am hearing is that until the Department of Justice provides documentation on Fast and Furious, the Department of State provides documentation on the Benghazi incident, and the Internal Revenue Service provides documentation on how certain groups were targeted, these organizations would not get funded.  Perhaps members within those organizations would become more forthcoming as whistleblowers.  There is a reason our Founding Fathers gave Congress the power of the purse.

Old Gadfly:  There is an important concept underwriting our discussion:  justice.  What we are witnessing is anything but justice in the current Administration.  The same government that would fine Hobby Lobby $1.3 million per day for not complying with the contraception and abortifacients  provision of Obamacare placed Lois Lerner on administrative leave for months with full pay and benefits while the Administration obstructs Congress’s Constitutional duty for oversight of the IRS and other executive branch departments and agencies.  Imagine this:  if an employee is not happy with Hobby Lobby’s hiring arrangements, he or she is free to find a different employer.  Yet, we do not have the freedom to refuse to pay taxes to an organization that violates our trust by abusing its authority.

IM:  I agree with AM:  shut it down.  We have 50 states that can take back the authority prescribed for them in the ninth and tenth amendments to our Constitution.

AM:  If politicians, Republican and Democrat, refuse to muster the courage to lead at this point in our history, then it is a matter of time when the federal government will experience a far worse fate than a simple shut down—it will implode.

IM:  Besides courage we also need judgment.  Is there no judgment within the Administration?

AM:  I remember, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Obama was accused of having “no experience.”  This observation did not intimidate Obama—he agreed. But, more importantly Obama boasted, he had superior judgment that more than substituted for his lack of experience. 

Old Gadfly:  Obama speaks and acts like a true intellectual without an ounce of wisdom.  Thomas Sowell brilliantly explains that there is a major difference between intellectual and intelligent.  Here is an excerpt from his book, Intellectuals and Society:

 The capacity to grasp and manipulate complex ideas is enough to define intellect but not enough to encompass intelligence, which involves combining intellect with judgment and care in selecting relevant explanatory factors and in establishing empirical tests of any theory that emerges.

            Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect.

            Wisdom is the rarest quality of all—the ability to combine intellect, knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding.  Wisdom is the fulfillment of the ancient admonition, “With all your getting, get understanding.”  Wisdom requires self-discipline and an understanding of the realities of the world, including the limitations of one’s own experience and of reason itself.  The opposite of high intellect is dullness or slowness, but the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, which is far more dangerous.[1]

IM:  May I suggest that the combination of dull Copernican drones following Obama’s foolishness is not new?  The distinctions described by Sowell existed more than two thousand years ago.  They have been documented in such historical texts as Proverbs in the Bible.  As we have discussed in previous conversations, Proverbs 26:11 comes to mind.

Old Gadfly:  If our national leaders have lost the capacity for the wisdom that might overcome the foolishness that has put our nation on such thin ice, then we may find ourselves seeking some solace in the book that follows Proverbs.

AM:  I’m not ready for Ecclesiastes.  To our elected officials, I say:  grow a spine and shut it down—if not Obamacare, then the federal government!

Old Gadfly:  The deadline is six weeks away.  How do we get the word out?

IM:  We need faith in the resilience of Americans to deal with any chaos from a government shutdown.  We must also muster our own courage to tell our family, friends, neighbors, elected officials, and anyone else we encounter between now and decision-time in September to “shut it down.”

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get started.  

---

[1] Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, (New York NY:  Basic Books, 2011), p. 4.

The Low Road

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, what are your thoughts about Edward Snowden being granted political asylum by Russia’s Vladimir Putin?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  It immediately struck me with the notion that while we have heard about many others seeking political asylum in America, it is rare to have an American defect to another nation.

AM:  I can only recall one other American:  Benedict Arnold, who defected to Great Britain during our American Revolution.

Old Gadfly:  Yet, I think that, when we analyze the differences, we will conclude the defection symbolizes a far greater danger to our national security.

AM:  What is that danger, Gadfly?

Old Gadfly:  That danger is the moral low road that characterizes political affairs in America.  First, however, let’s analyze Snowden’s defection within a broader context.  When Daniel Ellsberg leaked top secret material to The New York Times, he did not feel the need to defect.[1]  He did not fear for his life and trusted journalists at the Times to assist in alerting the American people to deceptions perpetrated under the Johnson Administration.  Snowden, on the other hand, did not trust the Times (or any other American news source) to alert the American people of a growing threat to civil liberties based on expanding National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programs.  So, he worked with an American journalist, writing for the United Kingdom-based newspaper, The Guardian. 

IM:  Incidentally, it was The Guardian where I first learned about Obama insisting upon a specific provision to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.  We discussed this disturbing development last September (Engineering Public Sentiment).  So, this NDAA provision likely explains why Snowden felt compelled to leave America before leaking the information about NSA surveillance programs.

AM:  And, don’t forget: Obama has authorized the assassination of American citizens via drone attacks in other countries.  What happened to the civil liberty of “due process of law” under the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution?   

IM:  What about the Army guy—Bradley Manning?

AM:  Arguably, Snowden’s behavior may actually have been patriotic and courageous. Manning’s behavior was neither patriotic nor courageous.  Manning’s behavior reflected an evil disposition (see our discussion on the Banality of Evil) in leaking thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks.  There is no evidence that Manning acted on behalf of the American people.  If anything, Manning’s actions put Americans at risk.  To America’s credit, Manning is receiving his “due process” rights under the Fifth Amendment.

IM:  Gadfly, how do these points relate back to your moral low ground theory?

Old Gadfly:  Let’s start by connecting some important facts:

Progressives are dividing America by declaring a set of “enemies” that consist of a variety of characteristics under the broader heading of conservative:  the 1%, Republicans, evangelicals, pro-life advocates, Tea Party members, even veterans.  The language emphasizes “hate” as the criterion for being defined as an extremist.  Unfortunately, progressives cannot evoke the same visceral reaction by more accurately representing the orientation of these groups as simply believing and advocating “contrary views.”  This distinction was obvious in Congressman McDermott’s “hateful” demonization of groups targeted by the Internal Revenue Service. 

George Lakoff, as the self-proclaimed force behind the spread of progressivism in modern politics, also belies this notion in the title of one of his books:  Moral Politics:  How Conservatives and Liberals Think.  In Moral Politics, Lakoff presented a case whereby conservative views are not only wrong—they are immoral.  These progressive views are even permeating an organization that is gradually taking on the role of “internal security,” a function that has been so essential for controlling populations within totalitarian regimes.  As the emerging “internal security” arm of the current political administration, the Department of Homeland Security released a report soon after the 2008 Presidential election.  Here is an excerpt from the report:   

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. (p. 2) 

I just described the current Administration’s philosophical context with a glimpse of messaging approaches.  Messaging is important—it becomes the public narrative.  Unfortunately, the narrative can be deceptive.  In America, the first clear attempt to advance political propaganda occurred under Woodrow Wilson’s direction.  Wilson was a progressive, who believed in a strong, central administrative state.[2]  When time for reelection, Wilson campaigned on the promise of not committing American fighting forces to the First World War.  Within weeks of a very narrow reelection, Wilson issued Executive Order 2594 on April 13, 1917 creating the Committee on Public Information.  Given prevailing public sentiment at the time, Wilson knew he could not get reelected if he intended to commit armed forces to the war.  So, he essentially told the public what they wanted to hear in order to get elected.  Once elected, Wilson could then do what he wanted, regardless what the majority of Americans wanted.  This is why he needed the messaging capability of the Committee on Public Information.   

The purpose of the Committee on Public Information was to generate public support for entering and sustaining the war, among many, many other domestic political, social, and economic programs.  One of the committee members was Edward Bernays, a public relations expert.[3] 

 

In addition to his own autobiography, Bernays published three works of significance:  two books, Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923) and Propaganda (1928); and a journal article, “The Engineering of Consent,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (March 1947).  What is ironic about these developments is that the most prominent, progressive President since Wilson, who now occupies the White House, had as his initial senior advisor a public relations expert, David Axelrod. 

Bernays is known for inventing the press release.  Obama and Axelrod have modernized this technique with social media, Twitter, Facebook, and so forth.  Unlike his predecessors, the current President also has the luxury of a mainstream media that goes out of its way to publish favorable press releases, or not to report news that is unfavorable to the Administration.  Engineering public consent has never been easier for the incumbent President and political elite.

Here’s an example of what I am talking about.  On December 20, 2011, I caught a headline on page A23 of the New York Times (New York edition): “House Republicans Refuse to Budge on Extension of Payroll Tax Cut.”^[4]  The article commended the Democrat-controlled Senate for exercising leadership and advancing a solution, and harshly criticized the Republican-led House for being obstinate. What the article does not say is that House Republicans had already forwarded a bill that they had passed on December 13.  House Resolution (H.R.) 3630, “Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011,” passed with 224 Republicans and 10 Democrats voting in favor, and 14 Republicans and 179 Democrats voting against the bill.^[5]  H.R. 3630 provided for a 12-month payroll tax cut.  On December 17, the Senate sent to the House an amendment (Senate Amendment 1465) to H.R. 3630 that changed the 12-month payroll tax cut to 2 months.  The New York Times article’s headline and content made it look like Republicans blocked the payroll tax cut. 

Add to this relatively minor example the more egregious deceptions related to circumstances surrounding the attack on Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, and the intimidation of journalists, to mention just a few, paint a disturbing picture.  The timing of the Benghazi and IRS targeting stories demonstrate to what length those in power are willing to go to suppress adverse information or contrary views during election cycles in 2010 and 2012.  The Department of Justice harassment of journalists stifled the role they are designed to play in support of our First Amendment. Unfortunately, while there are some journalists willing to keep a watch on the abusive power of government, there are far too many, as we have already discussed, who are guilty of complicity, duplicity, and mendacity.   

In the Hitler regime, the Minister of Public Enlightenment, Joseph Goebbels, admired Wilson’s political ideology and emulated Bernays’ propaganda methods.

In his autobiography, Bernays lamented this fact:

Karl von Wiegand, foreign correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe and just returned from Germany, was telling us about Goebbels and his propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi power. Goebbels had shown Wiegand his propaganda library, the best Wiegand had ever seen. Goebbels, said Wiegand, was using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me. . . . Obviously the attack on the Jews of Germany was no emotional outburst of the Nazis, but a deliberate, planned campaign.[6]   

Does this sound familiar?  Is this reference to a “planned campaign” similar to the logic behind “American enemies of the progressive movement,” that is, the 1% who have not paid their fair share, Republicans, evangelicals, pro-life advocates, Tea Party members, even veterans?

AM:  Gadfly, the sinister developments that we have observed in America since around 2007, when Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, do seem to indicate a deliberate campaign to secure political power for the progressive movement at a significant cost in moral authority.  The global vacuum generated by the lack of American character-based political leadership is having a terrible impact.  This impact is clearly evident in

·         the attack on American citizens in Benghazi and deliberate attempts to deny what happened;

·         the Administration’s capricious disregard for laws in the case of the bin Laden battlefield execution and drone assassinations of American citizens;

·         the continued chaos in the Middle East, from a nearly nuclear bomb capable Iran, over 100,000 civilian casualties in Syria, to Muslim Brotherhood attempts at power in Egypt;

·         the intimidation of journalists by the Department of Justice;

·         the intimidation, harassment, and censorship of opposing views via one of the most feared agencies in America—the IRS;

·         the obfuscation of NSA surveillance programs;

·         the obfuscation about Obamacare;

·         the obfuscation about how the Administration is investigating the “phony scandals,” and so forth.

IM:  Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew absurdly demonstrated such obfuscation during this past Sunday’s talk shows.  Perhaps the most insidious demonstration of obfuscation was reflected in the claims about increasing jobs and reducing the deficit.  Here is a picture from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the percent of the civilian population actually employed.

 

  A percent is equivalent to approximately 1.5 million people.  The difference between the 63% in 2007 and the 58.5% in 2013 represents about 6.75 million fewer people working. 

What this picture does not reflect is the number of those who are only part-time.  In other words, even for those who are characterized as employed are not full-time and are not receiving benefits such as employer-provided healthcare insurance.  Here is the number of part-time employees, in thousands:

 

In other words, this picture indicates an increase of 2.5 million people in the part-time employment category.

AM:  How about Lew’s comment about the most aggressive debt reduction since the end of World War II? 

IM:  As we discussed last year, the terms deficit and debt tend to be intermingled.  When we reduce deficit spending in our household budgets, we typically get there by either reducing our spending and/or increasing our income from earnings.  Progressives like to increase spending and to accommodate that spending through rent-seeking, or taxation upon those who earn incomes.  Earnings is a measure of production or wealth and is typically represented in macroeconomics as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The following is a picture of the annual federal budget in comparison with the GDP through 2011.  The values have been standardized for comparison purposes.

 

What this picture tells us is that, in 2007, government spending increased significantly as the GDP was decreasing.  This is why we see the red line crossing the black line.  What is significant about this dynamic is that the capacity for rent-seeking (e.g., tax revenue) has diminished (because of a shrinking GDP) while the appetite for spending has increased.  Notice also that the budget was well below GDP between 1994 and 2006.  This period marks Republican control of both houses of Congress.

Old Gadfly:  So, now that we have looked at the facts, what can we conclude? 

AM:  Progressives cannot acknowledge the truth—it does not support their ideology. 

IM:  Thus, progressives must resort to the moral low road.

Old Gadfly:  How do we get back on the high road? 

AM:  With integrity and courage.

Old Gadfly:   From where will people of integrity and courage come?

IM:  It starts with you, AM, and me.  This is what liberty is all about.  We cannot shrink from it.  We embrace it, we live it, and we teach it through example.

Old Gadfly:  Well said, IM.  Keep in mind: many have paid a price for liberty.

AM:  And the price may explain the difference between the innate goodness of humankind versus the banality of evil that seeks to diminish that goodness.

Old Gadfly:  Awareness of that difference is priceless.  

---

[1] For access to the report known as the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times reporting, see http://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/

[2] For an excellent analysis of President Woodrow Wilson’s role in advancing progressivism in America, see Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, (New York, NY:  Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005).

[3] See other analysis of Bernays at http://www.criticalthink.info/webindex/bernays.htm and

[4] For the online version of this article, see Jennifer Steinhauer and Robert Pear, “House Set to Vote Down Payroll Tax Cut Extension,” New York Times (December 20, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/us/politics/house-set-to-vote-down-payroll-tax-cut-extension.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2 Fpages%2Fpolitics%2Findex.jsonp

[5] For the official roll call voting record see http://clerk.house.gove/evs/2011/roll923.xml.  For a chronology of all Congressional Actions and decisions on H.R. 3630 and corresponding amendments see  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03630:@@@S

[6] Edward Bernays, Biography of an Idea: Memoirs of Public Relations Counsel Edward L. Bernays (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1965), as cited in an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays.