The Rutland Herald, the Modern Left, and Other Sickening Obamanations

by Alex R. Knight III

Exclusive to STR

February 16, 2009

I’m sorry it had to happen on Valentine’s Day, but the staff editorial (you know, one of those little 750 word diatribes that the journalist in question never even has the courage to put their own name to) in today’s (February 14, 2009) Rutland Herald here in Vermont does not exactly evoke in me feelings of love and gratitude.  It is, rather, a display of some of the most callous, uneducated, dogmatic ignorance which is even possible.  It has to do with Obama’s “bailout” plan.  Let’s cut right to the meat of the matter by quoting relevant sections verbatim:

“Whether the stimulus part of the package works depends largely on whether the billions of individual elements of the world’s economy thinks it will work, and seeing it turn into a grandstand play by the Republican old guard won’t engender confidence.  The $1.3 trillion Bush tax cuts got us this far, let’s see how much farther they’ll take us hardly seems like a rallying cry.

“But the tail-enders of Reaganomics have no other choice.  Even blaming Bill Clinton for some of the specific policies, the philosophy that brought the free market economy to a halt was unfettered, laissez-faire, greed-is-good, government-is-bad, trust-the-market-to-police-itself, Ayn Rand capitalism.”

Is your breath taken away yet?  Are you shellshocked, stunned, perhaps either just beginning to laugh, get angry, or both?  In short, can you f*cking BELIEVE the depths of this moron’s lack of education?  I don’t even know where to begin, but I suppose I have to in order to finish this essay.  So here goes:

1.)   “Unfettered, laissez-faire . . . Ayn Rand capitalism” or, put another way, a “free market economy,” doesn’t even exist within the “white” market – and in fact, cannot, so long as a government exists and taxes, licenses, regulates, and otherwise intervenes and artificially creates massive unnecessary overhead and bureaucratic waste.  And this has nothing to do with Reaganomics.  So yes, Mr. or Ms. Government Apologist: Government is indeed bad.  VERY bad.  

2.)   No, I suppose none of the “specific policies” alluded to in a gloss-over fashion could ever be blamed for the economy’s present state, certainly not the Community Reinvestment Act – which forced lenders to approve loans for those who had not the level of earnings necessary to pay for them – or the establishment of such government-sponsored enterprises as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, doomed from the very outset to insolvency.  And all of this is to say absolutely nothing of the Federal Reserve, which since 1913 has perpetually debased a worthless currency to the point where it is now approaching a final, go-down-in-flames end run similar to the Weimar Republic in Germany at the end of the Great War.  Only this promises to be worse – much worse.  With a crushing national debt, no commodity backing of Federal Reserve Notes whatsoever anymore, and a highly diminished industrial base, this collapse promises to dwarf anything ever seen before in history.  Yet I hear nothing from the Keynesian Socialist Left on this subject at all.  Not a whisper.  Gee, I wonder why not?  

3.)   While voluntary altruism is often commendable, “greed-is-good” is just a snide leftist way of attempting to smear the libertarian principle that self-interest is ultimately in everyone’s interests.  Wasn’t it Adam Smith who cogently asserted that the butcher, the brewer, and the baker do not come by their living by providing us with supper so much as to pursue their own ends by filling a market need or demand?  

4.)   Typical of Marxist thought and statist philosophy in general, is the notion that the market needs “police” to keep it in line.  When not intervened with, prodded, needled, second-guessed, and otherwise tampered with, here’s an inconvenient truth for the government apologists:  True free markets always correct themselves.  Let one exist in the first place, then try saying it just ain’t so.

All of this gets even better in the editorial’s next paragraph:

“John McCain, the loser in the November election, called the stimulus bill ‘generational theft,’ but if the end results are schools and roads, broadband networks and electrical grids, a cleaner environment and better health care, the next generation is going to think it money well spent, as opposed to the far larger cost of an imperial war begun on the basis of lies and in contravention of American and international law.”

I take no particular umbrage with everything that follows from “as opposed” onwards, except to point out how this communistic jackass feels that forcing people to pay for war at the barrel of a gun is bad and wrong, but perfectly okay when paying for a whole lot of things (education, roads, Internet service, power, etc.) that a true free market can provide more efficiently, at lower cost, and most importantly of all, without the arrogance of violent coercion.  This spin doctor obviously enjoys promoting the idea that the right-wing warfare state is reprehensible, but the left-wing welfare state is benign and noble.  Read:  Republican bad, Democrat good.  As if Right-Left, Republocrat-Demopublican, is an all-encompassing paradigm to which there are no alternatives.  I might concede that if one is going to play the hideous game of politics to begin with that there might be some merit to this position.  However, it ignores the obvious, that government itself is a bad business, a raw deal, an evil and wholly unnecessary abomination--excuse me, currently, an Obamanation.

The unspoken ulterior job of this Rutland Herald might be to mold public opinion through hyperbole, propaganda, and an utterly bankrupt and discredited philosophy, but I see my role a little differently.  I just go ahead and tell the truth.