Beyond Negotiation

Old Gadfly:  IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind), In our last conversation, we discussed how the dominant progressive narrative is beyond engineering public sentiment.

           IM:  Yes.  To be blunt, we talked about strong evidence of disinformation.  The President’s pompous, trivial, and unpresidential speech today was another case of unadulterated disinformation; and the speech was enshrouded in a cloud of utter absurdity.  Patting himself on the back, Obama bragged about being the first American leader in over three decades to negotiate with his Iranian equivalent, in this case, Hasan Rouhani. 

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  By the way, if you want excellent analysis of Iran’s role regarding control and instability within the Middle East, read Dexter Filkins’ article, “The Shadow Commander,” in The New Yorker Magazine.  After reading the article, you’ll see how naïve the “American leader” is.  But, in terms of political theater, claiming a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran was a clever way to set the tone for the rest of the speech.

Old Gadfly:  So, Obama takes credit for being the first in over three decades to negotiate with an Iranian counterpart, while refusing to negotiate with House Republicans?

IM:  That’s the gist of it.  Obama will negotiate with a party that has trained and funded actual suicide bombers while refusing to negotiate with what a White House staffer (i.e., communications director Dan Pfeiffer) has called “suicide bombers” in the House.  Republicans are expected to compromise, while Obama has no intention of compromise.  Yet, in his speech, Obama accuses Republicans of grandstanding.  It takes two to tango, but only one dancer will be held accountable in this scenario, and it won’t be Obama.  Isn’t it grand to be king with an indentured press to repeat the king’s proclamations?  I guess we long ago lost the meaning of the Boston Tea Party.  And these great Americans were considered extremists by King George as well.

Old Gadfly:  Give some examples of disinformation in the speech.

IM:  The elephant in this room is Obamacare, a law that was passed without a single Republican vote.  Last week, the House, acting in concert with their constituents, forwarded a bill to the Senate that fully funds the government, but defunds Obamacare.  The Senate Democrats could compromise by agreeing to the House bill.  But, they will not because of the sacred cow, Obamacare.  Further, Obama claims the House leadership has been held hostage by the extremist Tea Party faction, as if this group represents a fringe minority in its opposition to fully implementing Obamacare, and other government expansion efforts.

Old Gadfly:  I did not hear Obama mention in the speech that the majority of the American people are opposed to implementing Obamacare.  Do the people not matter in this debate?

AM:  The people only matter when Obama can use them for human instruments, as in background props while giving speeches.  Obama’s tone and rhetoric have even compelled many Americans to react emotionally in regard to any mention of the Tea Party.  If you can even get one of these Copernican drones to engage in a conversation, they cannot explain what it is about the Tea Party that makes them so hateful.

Old Gadfly:  I know what you are getting at, AM.  Remind us about human instruments.

AM:  During the American Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote an essay, “The Contest in America,” to convince the British government not to intervene in order to keep cotton flowing in support of their textile-based economy.  Mill closed his set of arguments with this observation:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.  When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.  A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice--is often the means of their regeneration.  A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.  As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.[1]

Old Gadfly:  Do you think union leaders are starting to feel “degraded” after serving as human instruments in the service of a master? 

AM:  Yes.  Unions danced with the devil they thought they knew.  Now, union leaders are angry and becoming vocal as they learn what is in the bill that had to be passed before they could know what was in it. 

IM:  So, AM, it sounds like House Republicans are exerting themselves by fighting the increasingly apparent injustices of Obamacare. 

AM:  And, ultimately, the fight is against the threat progressivism poses.

IM:  Ironically, Orwell described the evolution of political power when the animals took over the farm in Animal Farm.  He described how the seven commandments devolved into only one commandment:  all animals are created equal; some are more equal than others.  Progressives in the White House and Congress are increasingly more aggressive in practicing this commandment.  When the President chooses which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not, we have another Orwellian Napoleon calling the shots with the help of Squealer (Dan Pfeiffer and/or a complicit press), but these American characters are not fictional. 

AM:  I guess this is what progressives mean by social justice—take from some to give to others.  In the end, those who are not part of the club end up being mere human instruments.   Then again, there appears to be a large swarm of Copernican drones, who drink the club Kool-Aid, being used as human instruments as well.  They represent a large portion of the grass roots organization.  The Organizing for Action website is pretty hypnotic.     

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back to disinformation specifics in Obama’s speech.

IM:  Obama also bragged about the most aggressive reductions in deficits since the Second World War.  The highest deficit in the Bush Administration was less than half a trillion.  The lowest deficit in Obama’s Administration was $973 billion—more than twice the largest deficit recorded under the Bush Administration.  The other four years under Obama ranged from $1.1 to $1.4 trillion.  But what these figures do not tell you is that the cost of government is still growing, not receding.  And despite Obama’s rhetoric to the contrary, taxes have gone up.  While fewer Americans actually pay federal income tax, that minority is paying even more.  Without the increased tax revenue, there would be no deficit reduction.  Here’s the data from the Fiscal Year 2014 Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Table 1.1:

    

AM:  As I recall from an earlier conversation, the cost of the federal government in 1933 was about $600 per person.  Today, when adjusting for inflation so that we are using constant dollars, the cost of the federal government is now $12,000 per person.  This is 20 times greater.  Yet, poverty is as high as ever, median incomes are decreasing, and record numbers are on food stamps and disability.

Old Gadfly:  Am I missing something?  Obama wants the public to think he’s reducing deficits, which should reduce our overall debt.  Yet, did he not put Republicans on notice that they better increase the debt ceiling next month?

IM:  You did not miss anything, Gadfly.  This is a patent example of disinformation.  While deficits contribute to our national debt, it is the debt that puts our economy at risk because it can eventually exceed our capacity to generate the wealth from which tax revenue is drawn.  Obama wants the public to think the government is spending less by exaggerating deficit reductions . . . but our government is growing and so is the national debt.

Old Gadfly:  IM, does the government data indicate any statistical relationships between party affiliation in the House (where the power of the purse resides) and the size of government?

IM:  Absolutely.  Between 1981 and 2012, there is a strong, statistically significant negative correlation between House party affiliation and full-time equivalent positions in the federal government, where r = -.70, p = .000.  This means that as political power shifts to the left (Democrat), full-time equivalents increases significantly.  As the power shifts to the right (Republican), full-time equivalents decrease significantly.

AM:  This may explain why the federal bureaucracy is so heavily unionized.  Democrats like big government, and those who make up the government have champions in the Congress, with union dues helping to finance reelection campaigns.

IM:  What aggravates this dynamic is that there is also a strong, statistically significant negative correlation between full-time equivalent positions in the federal government and percent employed in the private sector, where r = -.64, p = .000.  This means that as federal jobs increase, jobs in the private sector decrease, and vice versa.  The balance between the cost of government and the capacity of the private sector to produce the wealth that is needed to sustain the cost of government is critical.

Old Gadfly:  What did Obama have to say in today’s speech about the economy?

IM:  He said, the Republicans are about to “throw a wrench into the gears of our economy at a time when those gears have gained some traction.”

AM:  What traction?  In our last conversation, we talked about how bad the job situation is. Here is what I said:  “The percent of our working population actually employed is at 63.2% (as of August 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics), the lowest in over 30 years.  And many who are ‘employed’ are in less than 40-hour a week jobs.”  Here’s the graphic to illustrate how significant this situation is.

Old Gadfly:  Can any of these circumstances be directly attributed to Obamacare?

IM:  Absolutely.  We already talked about union leader concerns.  Further, analysts for Investor’s Business Daily have conducted research that indicates jobs have been significantly affected by Obamacare.  According to IBD, “In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels.  As of Sept. 25, our ObamaCare scorecard included 313 employers.”  This only represents what is currently known.

AM:  Let’s summarize.

·         There are obvious issues with Obamacare.

·         Obamacare has already adversely affected jobs.

·         The majority of Americans do not want Obamacare.

·         Republicans are willing to fund government functions with the exception of Obamacare.

·         Obama wants all of a growing government funded to include Obamacare.

·         Republicans want to fix a bad situation on behalf of their constituents.

·         Wouldn’t an intelligent person be willing to negotiate based on these circumstances?

Old Gadfly:  Yes.  However, Obama is an intellectual, who is dogmatically locked into the progressive ideology that he plans to impose upon all Americans as part of his agenda to transform America.  This notion was evident in his March 22, 2009 victory speech on the passage of Obamacare.  Despite the majority of Americans still not in favor of the comprehensive bill known as The Affordable Care Act, midway into his speech (6 minutes and 7 seconds), Obama looked into the camera and into the homes of every American watching, and said, “This is what change looks like.”  Yes, from day one, Obama has assumed the mantle of a modern Grand Inquisitor and has had no intention of negotiating. 

AM:  So, we can choose to be human instruments in the service of a master, or we can fight for liberty and justice.  You know where we stand, Gadfly.

---

[1] John Stuart Mill, “The Contest in America,” Fraser’s Magazine, April 1862. This essay is in the public domain and available at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5123/pg5123.txt

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.

Takers Are Pathetic Fools

Old Gadfly:  IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind), have you recovered from the Presidential election?

IM:  I’m still experiencing the grieving process.  It’s amazing.  At first, I was raving mad.  Then, I had doubt about my own assessment as to which candidate was best prepared to lead the nation.  My doubts rapidly vanished yesterday when I discovered Obama’s first step on the subject of our economy was to meet with union leaders, senior members of the Center for American Progress, and Moveon.org.   

Gadfly:  Do you think those who voted for him realize what is happening?

IM:  Do you mean like having a hangover after all the celebration?

Gadfly:  My question was really rhetorical because I already know the answer.

IM:  What do you mean?

Gadfly:  There are two reasons why most of those who voted for Obama have no idea what is about to happen.  First, most of them are Copernican drones that lack the capacity for discernment.  Till now, they have not needed discernment because most of them have no desire to create or produce for the benefit of others.  This lack of desire to create or produce for the benefit of others reflects the second reason:  these pathetic creatures are takers. 

IM:  Gadfly, you do not sugar coat things.  What do you think is about to happen?

Gadfly:  The takers are about to take more from those who produce.  Today, I heard Obama wants to raise $1.6 trillion in new revenue.  He thinks he can do this by simply raising taxes on the wealthy.  Those who produce will stop producing.  There will be fewer jobs and less revenue.  The takers will not like this.  Chaos will emerge.  Martial law will be imposed, and America will become a totalitarian state.  Sounds absurd doesn’t it? 

IM:  Yes.

Gadfly:  Think about it.  Obama has not met with small business leaders to ask them how the federal government can help them grow their businesses and create jobs.  Not surprisingly, Obama’s first step was to meet with union leaders who take profits from company owners for their indentured takers.  Indentured takers then owe their allegiance to the union leader that serves as a parasite, feeding off the wealth of its host, the wealth creator.  Government unions are worse.  Public servants are supposed to serve the public, not union leaders.  Union leaders and union members are Obama’s lieutenants and pit bulls that threaten and coerce the producers, just as Orwell described in Animal Farm.

IM:  So, how does the Center for American Progress play into this scheme?

Gadfly:  As we discussed in a previous conversation, the Center is the epicenter for creating the progressive message.  The Center does not simply offer a set of beliefs.  It teaches orthodoxy that is a religious mandate for its followers.  Remember, George Lakoff, in his book Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think, explains that conservative values are not only wrong, they are immoral.

IM:  Is the Center for American Progress a taker?

Gadfly:  The Center provides the justification for taking from others by a large, central, statist government.  This taking is justified as social justice, so that the takers look like givers to a growing number of takers.

IM:  How about Moveon.org?

Gadfly:  Moveon.org was founded and heavily funded by George Soros.  Moveon.org is a means for communicating the progressive message.

IM:  Obama has assembled a nefarious team for supposedly restoring our stagnant economy.

Gadfly:  Yes, and this is why those who voted for Obama are not only takers, they are pathetic fools.  They want more from others and will soon have less.  Proverbs talks about such people who have existed for ages:  dogs return to vomit, and fools return to folly (Proverbs 26:11).  And the ultimate taker and fool is Obama, the person to which American takers have hitched their wagon—but all of us, to include those who have the capacity to discern and did not vote for Obama--will suffer the same misery if left unchallenged.

IM:  The collapse of our nation sounds inevitable.

Gadfly:  I’m not so certain about that.  I’ll tell you why.  When convincing the British government not to intervene in the American Civil War, despite the nation’s critical dependence upon cotton from the Southern states, John Stuart Mill observed:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.^[1]

IM:  Gadfly, are you saying we are at war?

Gadfly:  Absolutely.  We are at war. Our war is between indenturing orthodoxy of secular progressivism versus the liberating orthodoxy of Judeo-Christianity.  Free men and women, who already create and produce for others, must continue to fight on the side of justice. Justice is fairness for everyone, not just for those protected classes determined by governing elites.  These freedom fighters obviously want safety and security for everyone.  But more importantly, they will fight for the conditions that allow any person who so desires, to become self-actualized, not state-actualized.

IM:  Didn’t Mill also write about liberty?

Gadfly:  Yes, and one of the critical points Mill made in this work was that the true essence of liberty could only be attained if the people of a society are educated.  Education involves the capacity to critically think, to discern.  So, liberty is at risk in America, as the recent election demonstrated, because our education system has produced generations of Americans who lack this capacity (millions of Copernican drones) . . . for now.         

---

[1] John Stuart Mill, “The Contest in America,” Fraser’s Magazine, April 1862.  This essay is in the public domain and available at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5123/pg5123.txt