Differences between left and right

Steven Hayward has begun a series that explains the seemingly irreconcilable differences between conservatives and liberals.  This post is the first of three on this truly interesting series.  Most of what he says in the second installment  here we intuitively understand.  Nevertheless it is still instructive to see these differences on paper to be able to focus and reflect on them a bit.  Because conservatives understand the value of learning from the past, and liberals are willing to expunge the past from consideration in their search for a the perfect world order, it's clear the views are indeed irreconcilable which is why there is such an intractable divide between the democrats and republicans these days. It remains a mystery how these two philosophies can exist within the same family unit, a not uncommon occurrence.

Finally, Here is the third and here fourth installment of Hayward's PL posts on the differences between the left and the right.

Bowdoin College study

An upcoming study by the NAS (National Association of Scholars) should be interesting for anyone interested in what is going on in institutions of higher learning these days.  A common complaint of David Horowitz's Frontpage Magazine is the idea that while most liberal arts colleges are committed to a diverse student body that "resembles America"  the only real diversity is in the color of their students and and perhaps the gender of the faculty.  Horowitz argues that the social studies departments are almost completely staffed with liberals and only occasionally does he find a conservative on the faculty of the hundreds of campuses he visits each year in the course of talking about the unfairness of speech codes and the toxic politically correct environment they produce.  This study, as described here, will explore the curricula at Bowdoin in-depth, and attempt to find evidence of bias that may reflect a particular political bent or tilt.  Since the NAS mission is to protect the integrity of the academic environment in which its members function, it is unimaginable that this study will be anything other than thorough and objective   The results will be in the Spring of 2012.

ADDED:  On the subject of higher education this post from Innovations - The Chronicle of Higher Education blog, presents a recent "incident" that occurred at the U. of Wisconsin, having to do with the interruption of a meeting held in a local hotel by a respected organization that studies the effect and results of affirmative action policies (diversity initiatives) by institutions of higher learning.  It seems this organization through the FOIA had acquired the records on admissions at the U of W and was meetig to discuss these results when a student "mob", at the direction of the vice provo of the school's "Diversity" department, interrupted the meeting by taking over the site and threatening the participants.  Obviously the university and the "students" feared the outcome of the meeting, which indeed was discussing the facts of the admissions policies of the school in a most unfavorable light as is seen in this link to a post describing the events.

This blatantly illegal action on the part of the students who were goaded on by a school administrator is an outrage but in keeping with what is going on at schools all over the country.  The facts of the admissions policies including the graduation rates of the affirmative action admits are laid out in the post and make for discouraging reading if you are at all concerned about the quality of education offered by our universities and the impact of the diversity outreach programs which flow from the affirmative action law.  Thank you Sandra Day O'Connor for your contribution to the blatant discrimination agains white and Asian students now rampant at universities around the country.

Insider's perspective

This piece by a 30 year veteran of Washington political life, mostly seems to reveal what happens to an individual who makes a career out of serving politicians and in the process becomes thoroughly and justifiably cynical about the whole Washington scene. This recently retired author was a staff person for GOP committees for 18 years and his bio does not reveal for whom he worked the other 12 years.  In any event he is a GOP apostate and what's more has no great love for the Democrat Party either. While he definitely identifies many of the activities and policies of both parties that over the years have frustrated true conservatives, overall he seems personally more inclined to big government solutions than the smaller government mantra of the Tea Party and bonafide conservatives. He almost comes off as a closet liberal during all those years he worked for the Republicans.  Mostly his screed reviles corporations and their supposedly negative impact on the middle class and he assails with a vengeance the marriage of the Religious Right and the Republican Party.   His anti war position sounds a lot like Norm Chomsky or maybe even Michael Moore, especially since he seems to be against every war since WWII.  Again there is not a lot of context for these positions to judge where exactly he may be coming from. What's missing in his anti-Republican, anti establishment screed is any substantive discussion of the larger political and economic thinking that motivates either or both parties.  And, he gives no due to the rise of the Tea Party, arguably a movement that surfaced precisely because of the abuses of the system he articulates.  Maybe all the oversights are because he believes nothing other than pragmatic venality is at work in Washington, or maybe because he doesn't have an underlying economic/political philosophy, or hasn't yet heard of the Tea Party.  In any case he does not provide his readers many insights in this regard.

Overall one has to wonder how someone can spend 30 years in a career,  most of it working with Republicans, suddenly experience an epiphany and then turn completely against those with whom and for whom he presumably fought the good fight all those years.  Either the guy is bi-polar or maybe he's looking for a new post retirement gig as a turncoat spokesperson on MSNBC or Huffington Post.  One also can speculate why he waited 30 years to come out of the closet as a liberal.  Oh wait, can't come out early, he's a career Washington insider who vests after 30 years with a cushy retirement plan paid for by all those dumb taxpayers who thought he might actually be doing something useful and that he believed in for his six-figure paycheck. Can't jeopardize that cushy retirement by speaking out early. A personal takeaway:  Get rid of two thirds of the useless federal programs that cause all those oversight committees this guy worked for and he and most of the rest of those Washington insiders could go out into the private sector, get real jobs creating real wealth.  This guy is a poster child for a smaller, less intrusive, less dead weight federal government.

LATimes's Michael Hiltzik

Michael Hiltzik writes two columns on economics each week for the LATimes.  He is a liberal pretty much aligned with the Democrat Party proscriptions for curing depression and recessions.  In today's column "Obama's push for jobs conjures up FDR's approach", Hiltzik endorses the Obama plan to increase government spending on the infrastructure and raising taxes on the wealthy, two major components of FDR's New Deal plan.  He also knocks Romney's recent announced plan as a "return to the Bush era".  In extolling the New Deal proscriptions, Hiltzik seems to have forgotten this revealing 1939 quote from Henry Morgenthau, a major player in the Roosevelt Administration as Secretary of the Treasury:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."^[9]


Morgenthau was clearly frustrated by the fact that deficit spending by the government did nothing to reduce enemployment during the first 8 years of the Roosevelt Administration.  And yet, here we are in another recession/depression of a similar magnitude to the Great Depression of the '30's, and Hiltzik and the democrats are calling for the same failed policies Morganthau condemned.  


Hiltzik's book, "The New Deal: A Modern History, is due out sometime this week.  Whaddaya want to bet it doesn't include this Morganthau quote?

Brian Williams the shill

Visiting with good friends -- mostly liberals -- recently in Wyoming and Montana, it was enlightening to find that their main source of "news", at least of the television variety, was that served up by NBC's Brian Williams.  The news that yours truly found Williams generally far too biased politically and and therefore too big government solution orientated was largely greeted by these friends with indifference. Perhaps they did not find his reporting biased, or if they did, didn't care, or preferred Williams' world view.   This bit of reporting by Geoffrey Dickens of Newsbusters leaves no doubt for calling Williams what he is: a shill for the Democrat Party in general and Obama in particular.  And why not?  NBC is owned by the largest rent seeking corporation in the US, GE, who probably has more full time lobbyists than any other corporation and who has a huge stake in a large and growing federal government.  Such is the problem with a massive industrial corporation owning a major media outlet that is by the terms of its FCC license agreement supposed to be doing its news coverage business in the interests of all the people without regard to politics.  

How the liberal mind works

This is a long (57 minutes) interview of Fran Rich by Brian Lamb of C-Span.  It is particularly interesting in that it reveals quite clearly the approach to issues and events by a true blue liberal.  Rich is a product of the Washington/New York axis of media elites who don't think the rest of the country matters all that much.  Most of his opinions and views are about politics, or so it seems from this interview.  There is little or no mention of economics and capitalism and all the real stuff that makes the world go around.  Rich very much lives in the liberal cocoon of interests and thoughts reflected in the famous remark by one of the TV anchors who once said no one he knew approved of the Iraq intervention by the Bush administration.  Rich was a theatre critic before his gig as an op-ed contributor to the NYTimes, where he has been employed many years.  Interestingly he seems recently to have soured on Obama although not in this interview which took place before the election of '08.