And what defines "Democracy Working"? Why, the left getting what it wants! Surprise, surprise.
As you may have noticed (all five of you that read my rantings), I am often drawn to pointing out the underlying template of those on the left, the core beliefs that inform their assumptions in politics and beyond. And this is no different. I just got a fund raising solicitation from MoveOn.org (unfortunately, I just don't have anything to give them this year--perhaps they can ask George Soros) and it starts by letting me know that "democracy still can work".
And how do they define democracy "still" working? Why, they got what they want: ANWR defeated, the Patriot Act down (and if they think that's a lasting win for them, I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn they might want to buy) and, they seem to suggest, they've done something to defeat the "reverse robin hood budget" (and don't get me started on how in Robin Hood, the poor were poor because of the excessive taxation of the government, and Robin Hood was stealing from the government's treasury to give the money back to the over-taxed citizens, making their whole "reverse Robin Hood" poll-tested catch-phrase awfully ironic).
The fundamental logical problem they are suffering here (as the left so often does) is the idea that, when they lose on issues, it's a failure of democracy. That's an infantile, egregiously self-centered way of looking at the larger world. While I, personally, was for drilling in ANWR, think letting the Patriot Act lapse was probably not a real accomplishment, and fully support more tax cuts and less government spending (i.e., the "reverse Robin Hood" budget of the historically illiterate folks at MoveOn.org), I don't see democracy as "broken" just because what I wanted didn't happen, this time around. It isn't a failure of the system simply because I don't get my desired outcome, when the system is designed to modulate numerous competing interests over time. The system is working fine, even when liberals get exactly what they want.
Thomas Sowell refers to the structure of the underlying belief system of the left (in general terms) as "the unconstrained vision", and one of the features of the unconstrained vision is that it's focused on outcomes rather than processes (i.e., "equal treatment" for conservatives, or those with a "constrained vision", means that the process is the same for everybody, while "equal treatment" for liberals means that the outcome is the same, or largely the same, for everybody, and that the processes, such as they are, are adjusted or dismissed so that being with different "natural advantages" can all be modulated, or equalized, into the same, "fair" and "just" result).
And the idea that democracy (a process) is "broken" when liberals don't get their way (the desired outcomes), and is working when they do, is a perfect illustration of this orientation. Although nothing whatsoever has changed about the democratic process between, say, the 1994 Republican sweep of congress, the 2004 election of George W. Bush, or the 2005 successes of liberals in frustrating the Republican agenda, the only time democracy has been "working" and not "broken" (either via problems inherent, and not correctly adjusted for, in the democratic process, or by outright manipulation and cheating by the opposition) is when Democrats and the political left get their way.
I have recommended before, and will again, that if you want a solid understanding of the fundamental, underlying differences of right and left, forget the goofy liberal meandering of Thomas Franks (What's The Matter With Kansas, see my excellent review here) go straight for Thomas Sowell. I recommend A Conflict of Visions, a more academic treatment of the subject, and Visions of the Annointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, a book that covers the basics of the different visions, but also is full of facts, statistics, and real-world examples as to how those visions conflict in the real world, and how you often don't know the whole story (i.e., the outcome of much liberal social activism), because the negative outcomes from their good-intentioned initiatives is, for liberals, beside the point. As such, it's rarely covered or acknowledged, but Sowell takes on liberal touchstones like Unsafe at Any Speed and Silent Spring, and demonstrates how these efforts at self-congratulatory activism had results that were almost wholly negative. It is truly a great book.
The rest of the email covers the many ways in which MoveOn.org members have helped accomplish their goals, thus ensuring that "democracy still can work". While it's about what I'd expect (lambasts Republicans for doing things like attaching ANWR to the defense spending bill, something that all politicians from the farthest left to the farthest right have done, but you'd think the Republicans had only just invented this dastardly strategy, at this moment, to try and pass drilling in ANWR) it is interesting how hard they make the argument that their members helped make the difference. I wonder if they are losing cash and/or volunteers? If so, it's the right time to try and make up the difference: nothing succeeds like success.
However, I think their successes may be short-lived, and at least some of them (for example, just letting the Patriot Act lapse ain't going to last through the next session) are going to be largely reversed. And then, no doubt--at least, to the fine folks at MoveOn.org--democracy will be broken again.
Seriously, they are. Which is a good thing. Using a modern secular myth to justify looting the private sector and punishing the tax payer is reprehensible, and the more people who wake up to the same, the better.
The Jawa Report has a breakdown on how Axelrod and the Obama campaign are trying to make fake grassroots campaigns to smear Sarah Palin, while, at the same time, leaving a trail of smoking guns everywhere. No wonder the left like's to tell us they are the smartest and most ethical folks out there!
The Journal of Feminist Insight blog has a breakdown of softballs Charlie Gibson tossed Obama vs. the prosecutorial nature of his questions for Palin. Pretty damning stuff, indeed. For Obama: How does it feel to win? For Palin: Do you have enough qualifications for the job your seeking? And on and on and on.
Not classy, Charlie.
Apparently to folks of the left, the ends will always justify the means. Ruin people, lie, cheat, steal, anything short of murder (and, hmm, who knows, maybe that, too) is okay if it means you get universal healthcare and progressive taxation. Learning that, on the left, the end always justifies the means is why I'm not a liberal today.
