Why The Left Has To Lie

In Paul Krugmans recent Op-Ed piece, A Tale of Two Moralities, Krugman presents the difference between the economics prospective from the left and right. From the Left he says, “One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.” Krugman’s prospective of the right, “The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.” What Krugman show here is two of the main tenants of the left; the first is they have to lie about what they really want to do to the economy and American people, and the second is the left will will say anything, no matter how untrue, to mislead the American people. How did I get her from there? Well let’s look at what Krugman said. While Krugman did hit some points of a conservative philosophy, he also interjected the left’s new propaganda effort that the right is predisposed to violent rhetoric. If there is a better example of Goebel’s “big lie” philosophy, I haven’t seen it. If indeed Krugman is correct, how come this pre-disposition toward violent rhetoric only surfaced during Obama’s Presidential campaign, and was never discussed during the last 8 years under President George Bush. As a matter of reality, it was the left that embraced some of the most violent and reckless rhetoric that has ever been laid on any President. Another example is the lets rhetoric aganist Rush Limbaugh and Sarah. When Limbaugh said we wanted President Obama to fail, the Left said they wanted his kidneys to fail; which is more vile? When Sarah Palin said she was targeting Rep Gabrielle Griffin's state using a map with cross-hairs, the left said Palin should have been shot in the head instead of Griffin; which better defines violent hate speech?

What is obvious is the Left’s sensitivity to violent rhetoric is proportional to how much power they wheel in Washington. When the Democrats have the majority, then the left's violent rhetoric meter becomes very sensitive, when the Republicans are in charge, then the sensitivity of the violent rhetoric meter is tuned way down. Almost by definition the left is known for angry protests, unruly crowds, violent demonstrations and attack rhetoric and race baiting designed to provoke extreme emotional responses. Just look at the communist and socialist organizations, unions, anarchists even neighborhood organizers that are forever trying to rally their forces for revolution and change by any means necessary. And the left continues to state it is the right that is responsible for violent rhetoric, stating their opposite reality as fact and if it is repeated enough times; the citizenry will eventually believe it.

This is one of the bases of propaganda. The Left needs propaganda, which was developed in it’s modern form by Progressives in the late 19 century by the likes of Edward Bernays, because the citizenry does not know what is good for them and will not willingly give up their liberties for the good of the collective. The true difference between the left and right is the left believes that the citizenry is not capable of governing itself society is best left to elite planners; aka governing over the collective. The Right believes in the unalienable rights of the individuals and their right to govern themselves; aka government by the people.

After the shootings in Arizona, there was an avalanche of Democratic politicians that simply wanted to do away with our First Amendment right of freedom of speech; it was alarming how many of our representatives seemed to have no concept of the basis of liberty. Either that or it is an incremental step toward a planned and controlled society. The reason is, for societal planning to be successful the government needs to have the complete trust of the citizenry; and to be beyond reproach, government must be beyond criticism, so criticism of the government must be severely curtailed or completely eliminated. This tactic has been used very successfully throughout history when a totalitarian government has taken control.

So returning to Krugman’s Op-Ed piece, and how his pretending to describe the prospective of the right amounted to “the lefts basic premise that the citizenry are not capable of running their own lives, and therefore must relinquish their liberty in the name of security,” is he could not tell the truth about either prospective, so he had to lie. Rather than “the affluent to help the less fortunate” being “morally superior,” what Krugman is espousing is his belief that government is better at making moral decisions than the citizenry; that would be a hard sell if he was being truthful. I’ve already discussed the absurd notion of the rights ownership of violent rhetoric. But when Krugman says “the other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft,” he again is emphasizing that the government is better at spending money that the citizenry; which they are, but only by the way the citizens money is either wasted, or creates a sub group of Americans that are entirely dependent on government. President Obama and the Democrats have even recommended the removal of tax deductions for charitable donations, believing the government is losing tax revenue through these donations, as the government would be much better at deciding where these charitable donations are needed. But the up side of all this is the American people are much more aware than the Left gives them credit. Having a consumer economy means the American people have seen everything modern marketing has come up with, which has it’s basis in various forms of propaganda, so we know a liar when we hear one and the American people hear the left loud and clear