The Left is Brain-dead

The Left is Brain-dead

By Burt Prelutsky

Monday, August 20, 2007

I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to make sense of the world. Which is probably all the proof anyone needs to prove that I’m certifiably loony. Even though I know that one of the most obvious symptoms of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again in the foolish belief that the end result will be different this time, I can’t help myself.

For instance, a question that constantly plagues me is: why are there still people who long to see Communism prevail? Even back in the 1930s, when America was suffering through the Great Depression, very few American leftists packed their bags and moved to the Soviet Union. They certainly paid lip service to the so-called worker’s paradise, the Communist Eden, trying to peddle it to the masses, but they, themselves, Stalin’s “useful idiots,” chose to remain here, in Chicago and New York, Philadelphia and Detroit. A few of them went over there, but they didn’t stay long. All in all, they seemed to think it was a nice place to visit, but they didn’t want to die there. So why do so many people continue to promote the vile system?

Perhaps way back in the old days when Marx and Engels were kicking ideas around, people could be excused for seeing something nice in their theories. But ever since then, wherever societies have attempted to turn theory into reality, the earth has been bathed in blood, whether it was in Russia, China, East Germany, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela, Hungary or North Korea; brutal tyrannies, each and every one. In none of those countries, not too surprisingly, has art, literature or science, flourished. Aside from various forms of torture, these regimes have contributed absolutely nothing to mankind, and yet the yahoos of the Left continue their incessant cheerleading.

Such extremely successful capitalists as Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg and Michael Moore, pay court to Fidel Castro, in spite of the fact that Castro censors the Cuban press, persecutes homosexuals, imprisons AIDS victims, and executes his political foes. But, then, what else would you expect in a world in which Che Guevara posters continue to sell in the millions?

Speaking of millions, even I was shocked to read that, according to Forbes, Cuba’s dictator is richer than England’s queen. I knew it was good to be king, but apparently it’s even better being a left-wing tyrant.

If you’re of a certain age, you may recall that years ago, during the Cold War, there was a major controversy revolving around the introduction of fluoride into America’s water supply. Those in favor claimed it would strengthen our teeth and help us ward off cavities. Those on the other side insisted it was all a Commie plot. I can’t recall exactly what it was the anti-fluoride crowd worried about. But if they suspected that, while toughening up our teeth, it would simultaneously weaken our national resolve and turn us into a bunch of weak-kneed, chicken-hearted, liberals, who insist we run from any fight we can’t win in five minutes, they just may have been right.

 

"a question that constantly plagues me is: why are there still people who long to see Communism prevail?"

If we could just get the right people this time.......



"Russia, China, East Germany, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela, Hungary or North Korea; brutal tyrannies, each and every one."

If we could just get the right people this time....

 

And, don't forget: It would work here....

 

Come on, don't you think this is a bit of an extreme example of baiting and/or yellow journalism? This liberal versus conservative thing is much more dangerous than the U.S. being run by Democrats or Republicans or a combination thereof.

Leftist communism is not the same as U.S. liberalism. Even though we have gotten so divided over the last decade or so, I don't think our liberal leaning Americans are suggesting a dictatorial regime.

I try to be as Independent as possible, and yes, I guess what might be called a Centrist. Economies have led to the rise and fall of many of the regime's mentioned in this piece. Ideas on how to keep the masses fed led to some Communist states based on the good ol' "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" credo, and caused major change to societies.

We don't advocate that in the U.S. We still reward hard work, or as with traders, hopefully smart and hard work.

This left/right thing is wors than European soccer matches, no winners when the fans all kill each other.


c

 

creeping socialism

 

I think his point was, why do apparently intelligent liberals support and seemingly idolize these brutal communist tyrants?

I might add, why do liberals despise evangelical Christians but think we should make all kinds of accommodations for muslims, who violently oppose any criticism, who subjugate women, who persecute homosexuals, etc?

It's one of the things that confuses normal people about liberals and makes us feel like we can't possibly trust them to run the government.

 

the same reason why you love bush and co. how many innocents have they killed iraq, overtly and covertly? you have a complete secret police and torture division- the CIA. but you are not allowed to talk about it.
Probably better than russia's or the mossad. how long can you delude yourself that you are doing 'gods' work as you unleash billion of dollars of WMD on civillians around the world, for decades?

yet claim to not know what people hate you? There is a dangerour cult here -the same types of people who would have turned their neighbors over to the SS as 'subsersives'. that same kind of evil.

 

To Mr. AAA - with respect.


Yeah, this is where the definitions of liberal and conservative, left and right, come into play. I guess a liberal might ask why do otherwise intelligent people and media on the right continue to support the Iraq war, and that anyone who disagrees about the war is a supporter of terrorists and committing treason. My rather extreme liberal friends are no fans of Communisim. Many of my extreme conservative friends hate us being in Iraq.

As far as trusting any politician to run the government, well I don't really think anyone really trusts any poliitco. Party politics are a big part of the divide versus the actual hatred between factions of the American public. I work with a bunch of a-type personalities with extreme personal feelings about politics, as you would expect in any group environment, and we seem to co-exist, go to birthdays and bar mitzvah's, and even discuss our reasons for one topic or another without resorting to name calling.

FWIW, I didn't vote for Clinton and I didn't vote for Bush, and am a registered Independent. I guess my voting record sucks, it's tough to be in the middle and win anything I suppose. I do feel that many, maybe not among the ET elite, but many voters just vote the party line, and that certainly can't be picking the best people, IMO.

I don't like a welfare state, and I hate seeing what happens to our wounded soldiers after they return from war. I guess that is an right and a left type thing, and I think, or at least hope, that there are more people with the same thoughts, republican or democart, left or right.


c

 

cgroupman:

Let's imagine the Bush tax cuts being rolled back. A 150k a year wage earner in NYC (not a tremendous sum if one's raising a family) would be in a 55% tax bracket if one includes local and state taxes. Throw in excise taxes and PROPERTY taxes and you're in a 60-65% tax threshold. Fail to pay it and you're in jail with all assets SEIZED. Not a pretty sight. Imagine what Tom Paine, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would think.

A populace who SUBMIT'S to excessive taxation had might as well wear a button saying, "Take Away Every Liberty I Have."

I find it both hilarious and scary that those who favor high taxes will speak like Libertarians when it's about issues like homo marriage. I'll make a deal with the Left. They can suck each other's dicks and I get to keep all my money......

 

I hear you. If the polling is accurate, much of america agrees with you. An often repeated theme among ordinary voters is they want politicians to quit all the partisan bickering and fix problems. You will hear candidates saying things to try to get in tune with this. Obama's entire campaign seems to be based on it.

Obviously, we would be better off if there were less partisan bickering, or less aminosity between the left and right. Unfortunately, a lot of that bickering and animosity is reflective of deep-seated differences in principles. I for one don't want my representatives giving up the principles they were elected on just for the sake of getting along.

What I really dislike is the level of anger and the way disputes become personalized. I don't happen to think that George Bush has been a very good president, but that doesn't make him Hitler. I think any fair assessment has to conclude that liberals are mostly responsible for personalizing politics and appearing unhinged with rage and anger. I'm sure though that ZZZ and others will go crazy about that and say it's all Limbaugh and O'Reilly's fault. Personally, I think it goes back a lot further than them. LBJ ran the infamous little girl picking daisies ad that morphed into a mushroom cloud, implying his opponent Barry Goldwater was a nutcase who wanted nuclear war. Ted Kennedy made outrageous and defamatory claims about one of the most distinguished legal minds of our generation, robert Bork, to keep him off the Supreme Court. They did even worse with Clarence Thomas.

The problem with the extreme anger and personalized politics is precisely the one you identified. Winning or defeating the hated opponent becomes way too important. If you feel your opponent is Hitler, it becomes easy to justify doing almost anything to defeat him. Consensus and compromise become impossible.

Whatever. I think a good test to apply is to see who is talking about the merits of a particular issue versus who is accusing the other side of being evil.