22 12 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

As I understand the game played by contesting political parties and their candidates, all the energy is expended on retaining or attaining political power. The goal of elections is to receive more votes than the opposition. Consequently, the objective of a political campaign, by all means legal or close to extralegal, in its simplest term is to garner votes. This ultra-democratic statutory of one-man-one-vote instantly motivates politicians to promises. These promises are often exaggerated as well as contrived. Sometimes these “in the heat of the campaign” promises included federal cash, miscellaneous benefits, and access to what was heretofore denied.

Normally, after promising the moon and the stars, the politician clarifies the promise with a reasonable number of caveats or synthesis of the original promise. If however the promise has the semblance of a specific entitlement to a certain sector of the population then the politician evangelically concedes that such cash, benefits, and access is actually a moral restitution. It is a societal debt and they deserve it.

The idea, promulgated by the liberal progressive politician, is that the forcible giving from those that have more to those who have less is nothing less than a righting of a long overdue wrong. Effectually, the theses and those who desire the retention or the attaining of power will promise anything under any guise, including dishonesty, to win the necessary votes. A consideration should be given by congress that such actions by politicians is an act of corruption hard, simple, and abrupt; but, then I guess we’re never going to persuade the fox, who we voters sent to the henhouse, to stop eating hens.

The entire concept of achieving the progressive agenda rest on a number of multi-reasoning considerations and arguments, I have exposed three plans. Plan-A’s basis to broaden in scope and size the power of government is the idea of Fairness; Plan-B’s is the plea for social justice, followed by the colloquial concept of establishing a level playing field. And if all else fails to solidify liberal progressive implementation there is always Plan-C, wherein, the progressive argument should prevail so to abate racism in its current form or to enable reparations for the white man’s antecedent racist behavior.

The proponents (socialist, progressives, Marxist) of utilizing the federal government as the omnipotent tool to right the perceived morally wrong-platform their argument by examples of class distinction-they note a pattern of unfairness founded on the premise that the rich are by means explicit or implied depriving, especially the poor, but also, the middleclass of their fair percentage of the bountiful American pie.

Interestingly they hold as culpable, in this conspiracy of immoral deprivation, the very federal government they hope to facilitate as the instrument to right the wrong. Applying counter-intuitive measures, such as blaming the federal government, was not unusual for the Robespierre Committee of Public Safety but in this time and space? Oh yes, wait a minute, now I understand their meaning, it was not the government in general, it was the republican government that created the unfairness. So these champions of fairness need to control the federal government by electing liberal progressives, then and only then, will fairness apply, only then will the rich share their wealth and all inequities be righted.

Naturally, it follows that in order to right palpable wrongs a liberal progressive government must have the power to act.

For example, a means test is essential to establish the definition of fairness; such a test would create a criterion of standards. This is critical because there needs to be a political-legal methodology to define the exactness of fair.

There is also the danger of the ever-present, ubiquitous, though seemingly always difficult to define, powerful special interest. These lobbyists may provoke and persuade action that may not service the acceptable definition of fairness; as a consequence, these lobbyists will need to be suppressed. This is a case for the ‘committee of regulators.”

Those greedy rich corporate persons who insist on higher and higher profits to satisfy shareholder’s insatiable need for dividends are a problem. This type of corporate behavior could violate the definition of fairness and will need to be penalized. Obviously, this is also a case of the “committee.”

Naturally, the ultra-liberal artisans who support the government’s interest in fairness need to be separated from the greedy corporate folks. Additionally, they should not suffer from any scurrilous accusations; in fact, any accusations of hypocrisy or self-dealing will be criminalized. The extension of exception to ridicule, includes, the rich who support the Democratic Party; it is known that these well-to-do really would like to pay more in taxes. Rich Democrats want to pay more in taxes because, frankly, they, unlike the “others” are patriotic and morally sublime.

In keeping with the concept of fairness, when the Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and free-thinkers are properly aligned or suppressed, a statutory law will define not just fairness but penalize any violators of not being fair. As the result of a law defining fairness, empathy replaces prudence, self-reliance, and individualism; no one will suffer, all will be equal, finally, the poor and disenfranchised will inherit their fair share.

Perhaps with a liberal progressive administration, a citizen will be prohibited from being rich. It could as if the estate tax was applicable while one is alive. Death will not be a requirement for sharing one can share while one is alive. The spiritual benefits alone enables one to find happiness on earth. Imagine working 12-14 hour days, risking one’s capital, taking on the stress of business and the reward is knowing that once one reaches a certain dollar number all goes to service the needs of those less fortunate. After all Obama has declared that $500,000.00 is more than enough money.

What I really love about this doctrine of Fairness presented by the liberal progressives? It is not tainted by any entrepreneurs, no capitalistic influence whatsoever, no direct contribution of opinion from equity or bond investors, no financier’s critic, none of that sort of corruptive authoritarians. Instead there is the purity of academia splashed all over this doctrine. There is the sage-like advice of liberal politicians, progressively inclined pundits, résumé-impressive professors that actually teach at prestigious universities, and of course, for real validation there is the endorsement of community organizers.

There is no doubt that fairness is the doctrine that will finally save the weak from the strong, truly, by implementing this doctrine of fairness, the meek inherits the earth as well as heaven…well, upon contemplation, liberal progressives are secularists so I’ll stop on the meek inheriting the earth.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: