Authored by William Robert Barber
Certainly I cannot confirm, nevertheless, my assumption is that within the mindset of a liberal progressive there is a compelling sense for moral righteousness; this self-determined moral sense of doing what is righteous forms the basis of a liberal progressive’s obligor of service. It is this moral determinative of righteousness that kindles the ideal, the exceptional, the reasoning to their often indiscernible, too wit.
Liberal progressives envision themselves as the modern paladin; a champion of fairness, social justice, enablers of “a level playing field;” they are the separator, the benchmark, the contrast from the normative base and common. They are the intelligentsia of cognitive all-knowing. Wonks who possess the utility of sublime meaningfulness, these liberal progressives, out of their sheer sense of moral righteousness, know, it is best and in the interest of the common good that they govern those that know less.
For the liberal progressive, the presumption of cognitive all-knowing is the intrinsic precursor, an intellectual predeterminative that applies to all political and socio-economic problem-solving. It is this ideal of moral fidelity to righteousness that intrinsically fuels a progressive’s contemplation, analysis, and conclusiveness.
By means of gradual intellectual stimuli layered by years of scholarly affect or the natural evolving of a parent’s initial prospective, and possibly the sublet persuasion of a teacher or mender; regardless, the parts and pieces aggregate into the result and a liberal progressive mind-set is created.
Somewhere along this line of aggregating parts and pieces, the methodology of logical deduction is overwhelmed by the comforting assurance of predeterminative beliefs. Let’s utilize the Obama administration’s approach to solving the challenges brought about by the present economic turndown:
The recession preceded Obama’s oath of office by about a year; in February 2008, G. W. Bush, with the support of a Democratic Congress, established a $168 billion stimulus. Larry Summers and Peter Orszag endorsed the policy, noting that this and any stimulus should be “timely, targeted and temporary.”
By the third quarter of 2008, the GDP fell by 4% and the financial meltdown finalized any hope of economic recovery. Stimulus I failed. Not deterred, Stimulus II moved into execution, this time the amount was $814 billion. Summers now promised that this cash-influx would have a 1.5 “multiplier” effect on GNP growth, not to be outdone; Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein infamously predicted that this stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%.
The Federal Reserve had its own unprecedented monetary stimulus with cutting interest rates near zero and purchasing 2 trillion dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities as well as other assets of unknown market value.
Congress, not wanting to seem disengaged from the crisis of the moment, created other cash giveaways of its own design: The $8,000 home-buyer’s tax credit, mortgage payment relief, and unemployment pay extended to 99 weeks, and cash-for-clunkers.
In the end of the end, the government has never before spent so much and intervened so directly in credit allocation and received in turn so very little. After nearly 3 trillion in federal debt, we still have over 15 million unemployed.
Now, after all of this evidence and fiscal testimony, what does the Obama administration and the liberal progressive majority in congress want for this nation? Well, more stimulus! Their reasoning is that the stimulus was too small. The “because” part of their failure to address the economic turndown is particularly insightful; they say that the Republicans just respond with “no” and do everything in their power to block their efforts. Imagine, the Democrats control the entire government and it is the Republicans who blocked their problem solving agenda!
I wonder, considering his government’s failure to stimulate the economy by the means employed before and after his inauguration, will its economic team push on with more of the same? Will there be a continuum? Will the basis of Obama’s progressive ideological inclination overwhelm the empirical evidence that indicates a contrarian initiative to spend and tax as a solution?
I think that if one looks to his constancy of trashing business and bankers as greedy SOBs, calling out entrepreneurs as nothing less than rotten special interest, and obstacles to his plans of “transforming” American society, more than likely Obama is committed to his ideological agenda.
Recently, at a Labor Day event, the president said, “anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it’ll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up, they just haven’t studied our history. We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness.”
How’s that for restoring the confidence of the average business person? All this president seems interested in is creating uncertainty and doubt. In the tax-and-spend world of Obama, his most recent contradiction is that he wants to cut taxes on capital because the economy needs the stimulus — then he wants to raise taxes on capital that he says won’t hurt growth… hmm….
At the top of this article I noted the liberal progressive sense of moral righteousness as an a-priori of cause. I now suggest that their ideologically founded predeterminations have corrupted their ability to tackle the real-world requirement of adaptation to contrary empirical evidence. Hence the ability of a liberal progressive to implement an economic policy not harmonious with their guiding ideology ranges from extremely difficult to impossible.
Obama and his confederates will not allow, even at the expense of the nation’s interest, evidence to the contrary of their political prospective to alter their actions. So let’s throw the bums out of office…