Every once in a while, and in the case of several of the Wall Street Journal’s editoral staff, there is clarity. Today’s column by Daniel Henniger provides such clarity.
Here’s the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359570364488858.html
Rock on!
How is it possible to resist the charms of any elected official offering the dual benefits of fairness and protection? After all, is not being treated equitably, while simultaneously being spared the pain of those who would seek to harm us, not of ultimate worth? Fairness must certainly be the quintessential American value, right? And our entire system of justice; is it not specifically designed to bring both fairness and protection?
Over the next year and a half we will hear the word fairness as if the word encapsulates the complete and final animation of the American ideal. We will also be offered a basket overflowing with governmental “protections†from rapacious bogeymen, both known and unknown. This little “benefits package†will come neatly wrapped in the form of a vague threat that would have us believe any alternative to this package would immediately result in enslavement. It is only demons that would offer us, the American people, anything less.
The real wonder in all of this is how Thomas Jefferson seemed to have completely missed the significance of the beatific vision of the liberal left. To have settled for such suboptimal and simple notions as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must clearly validate the marked progression in our political thinking. Alas, we are talking about a couple of centuries of human achievement. If we can build an iPad, we must certainly be able to build a perfectly integrated, transparent, and high-functioning system of governance. We call this “political science,†as if it was somehow scientific.
Hope and change was the first chapter. Fairness and protection are now emerging as the second chapter. The only remaining question we now have is in determining which of these sets of notions is the most utterly naïve. There is, however, no remaining question as to which is more dangerous. Chapter Two is an unmitigated societal, moral and economic horror show.
Like hope and change, fairness and protection are proffered without definition or object. One man’s version of fairness is another man’s version of purgatory. To suggest that protections are being afforded is to beg the obvious question, “Protection from what or from whom?†The suggestion, of course, is that the government will become both the ultimate dispenser of fairness, and the protector from anything that is “not-government.†This is a binary universe in which the government is the center of virtue, and everything and everyone else is either mundane or oppressive.
In a hypothetical world where half the citizenry are drunken bums and the other half are productive and hard-working citizens, what represents a fair tax rate? Apparently, there is a fair answer to this question, albeit that the obvious answer seems to elude most of us common people. Not to fear, in the liberal mind, they have the answer. And if regulation doubles the price of that which we seek to consume, we must presume that the level of “protection†is worth paying for. Just ask them. They not only have all the answers, they are willing to impose them on everyone else.
They spin a web of myths. It is only unfortunate that these myths are so seemingly beguiling.
When Mr. Jefferson offered his modest notions of a sustainable basis for societal success, he understood that the government can only create a set of conditions where people can optimize their unique futures. He had seen the fairness and protection “themes†played out in history and seen the implications of the associated governmental arrogance. Mr. Jefferson was willing to look at humanity in a more positive light than many of his contemporaries. Even he could not begin to fathom the negative implications of what is now being offered as the standard offering of the Liberal Left.
When the markets create a willing buyer, and a willing seller, at a given price, most of us would agree that the “trade†was fair. On the other side of the equation, when the government intervenes in anything, it is not fairness and protection that we receive. It is rather just someone’s version of coercion. The liberal definition of fairness is just another form of arbitrary and completely baseless enslavement. It cannot be heard in any other way.
Fairness is only found in established conditions. It is never found in a quest for derived outcomes. When liberals transmute the definition of fairness into an effect, as opposed to its native state as a cause, they turn the world inside out. Viewing fairness as an effect is, by definition, fundamentally unfair. And the result is always predictable, and never pretty.
Leave it to Mötley Crüe to be the prophets of the age.  In 1989 they recorded their high-test Doctor Feelgood disc that contained the lead single by the same name.  Besides being a musical treat, the song foretells (or retells) a very old story.  Living amongst us, in the pit of our deepest worries, is the man that can make it all go away.  We aren’t necessarily certain as to how he actually does it, but we really want to believe that he can do it.  Even if it’s a hoax, that is just fine.  We need a visit, every once-in-awhile, from the good Doctor Feelgood.  It is the messianic story.  And he is the agent in Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces. The chorus of the tune goes like this:
Let him soothe your soul, just take his hand
Some people call him an evil man
Let him introduce himself real good
He’s the only one they call ‘Feelgood’
So, what does Dr. Feelgood’s tell us? Please, pull up a chair.
Gosh, that all feels so good doesn’t it?  I, for one, feel better already. We can be 100% worry-free just by accepting these ten very easy-to-follow steps.  Just let him soothe your soul!  In faith, just take his hand…
He is our only hope.
And that would be true, but for the existence of one small detail that we might want to ponder for just a moment.
The fact that some people call him an Evil Man does not make it not so.
Our kindergartners are taught that when a strange man pulls up in a car and offers you a ride, run away and tell an adult.
Lesson for first graders: When the strange man shows up again and starts spouting off the list enumerated above, run away and tell an adult.
Lesson for adults: When the President of the United States incorporates the entirety of the above list (several times) in the same State of the Union speech: run away and drive him out of office.
The following video uses few words to convey what most Americans are truly concerned about today.Â
The Labor Department reported this morning that nonfarm payrolls fell by 131,000 in the month of July. Even more discouraging was that June’s revised payroll number was revised downward to a negative 221,000. This is huge. Initial jobless claims estimates released Thursday was 479,000, and was an increase from the previous week’s 460,000. The two statistics, nonfarm payrolls and initial jobless claims, are suggesting the same thing–employers are not hiring, and are, in fact, laying off workers, and we may very well be headed into a “double dip” recession.
That’s the report. Here’s the analysis. As suggested some months ago, the past predicts the future. As Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. There will be no new net growth in employment until new jobless claims fall below 400,000. Hiring cannot and will not happen until employers are confident that they have sustainable business prospects, that their expenses will be stable (like health insurance premiums) and that their taxes will be stable. Again, we’ve seen this scenario before. It was called the Carter Administration.
Right now, President Obama and his staff are crafting a spin that would suggest this is all the Bush Administration’s fault. That somehow, the last 18 months didn’t happen and they are not responsible for any of the anemic economic growth evident currently. The reality is, they could blame the Bush Administration for anything that happened in the first six months of the current administration. All economic activity since August 2009 is due to Obama Administration policies.
It’s time for the President to put his big boy pants on. No one wants to hear his whining anymore. Nor do we want to see solutions that will expand the national debt and budget deficit. And while I feel for all of the 6.6 million people that have been out of work for six months or more, it’s laughable to watch the arrogance of liberal Democrats defend their failed policies. The Democrats are imploding, again, something I predicted in November 2008. They violated economic principles. They thought they were smarter than that, and that, somehow, because the sun rose and set on Barack Obama, it would be different for them. This is a hard lesson to learn. The longer this lasts, the more seats the Republicans will gain in the November elections. By all means, they should continue their rhetoric. It’s fun to watch.
