Columnist From DC Paper For the Homeless Blasts "Partisans of the Left", Promotes Free Market

The Republican Party and many conservative groups have shied away from inner cities in the past.  Collectively, they may see little point in confronting what they feel will be universal hostility.  As individuals, few want to go to speak at events where they may be derided for the duration.

Are either one of these fears based in reality?  One DC columnists' writings suggest not.

Jeffrey McNeill writes an opinion column for Washington DC's Street Sense.  Through much of 2013, his work shows growing affinity for free markets while feeling disgust and disdain for "partisans of the left."

McNeill's most recent column, "A Critique of Liberalism," begins by citing studies showing black Americans to be more socially conservative than many Tea Party advocates.  "Truth is," he writes, "a conservative vein runs deep in the black community."  McNeill condemns what he calls "victim rhetoric" and explains "as a minority, I yearn for a new black leader to emerge, someone who will inspire a new generation . . . to be independent and self-reliant."

He then cites Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, and West Virginia's Booker T. Washington as examples.

"Latte liberals" draw much of his ire.  McNeil describes them as standing up for the little guy until they "go off to their suburban homes pontificating about what others might do for humanity."  Their "social theories border on arrogance."

McNeill discusses his own struggles with how these ideas brought him into conflict "with those I once agreed with."  A summer 2012 piece of his angrily decried anti-Obama conservatives as racist.  While McNeill refuses to call himself conservative, he does call free enterprise "harsh and cruel (but) it is the ticket out of poverty."

The Republican Party and conservative groups would do well to closely look at McNeill's writings.  He came from "some of the worst projects" in New Jersey and Philadelphia, but saw "miracles" such as single mothers, addicts, and others getting off welfare, overcoming obstacles, educating themselves, and becoming successful in life.

A message of self-reliance never falls on deaf ears.  Many people strive to do for themselves.  The inner cities are oppressed by poverty in part because government restrictions, regulations, taxes, fees, and other burdens always kill entrepreneurial initiative in the poorest areas.  Prosperity cannot take root so hope dies. Free market advocates can bring a powerful message to the inner city if they will but go.  McNeill's writings are proof that many will listen.

Street Sense is a newspaper published in Washington DC for the benefit of the homeless.  Vendors write for and sell the paper to earn money.  All are homeless and struggling.

Think You're a Liberal? Not So Fast. You Might Be a Libertarian!

I have noticed that people will often say they are Republicans or conservative Democrats, but that they are liberal in some areas. Fair enough. But when you ask them what they mean by "liberal," you often see that they are not that at all.

Liberal in today's political parlance comes very close to what it meant in the 1500s when it was used as a political term by Nicolo Machiavelli. To him, "liberal" meant first and foremost that you doled out a lot of the public treasury to a lot of the people. The leader did that to look generous and to gain the support of the multitudes. Of course, Machiavelli warned that you have to tax others to get that money and you risk alienating them from your system.

When I ask self-identified "liberal Republicans" what they mean, they usually respond with similar issues. They generally want to legalize some drugs, some are uncomfortable over outlawing abortion, and most have no problem with gay marriage. This does not necessarily mean that you are liberal, but probably libertarian.

Libertarians believe in maximum freedom of choice for each individual. They adhere most closely to the Jeffersonian maxim "the government that governs best, governs least." Here is how you can tell if you are a libertarian instead of a liberal.

Drugs:

Libertarians want to legalize drugs, at least the ones that grow out of the ground and need no manufacturing. They believe that the drugs should be used or sold with a minimum of government interference. One of their arguments is that marijuana sales would boost the legitimate economy of states like West Virginia.

Liberals believe that if drugs are legalized, they ought to be taxed to the point that the producers receive little or no profit. They pretty much feel the same about pharmaceuticals.

Gay Marriage:

Libertarians tend to want to government to get away from marriage period. Many want marriage to be a sacrament or social institution separated from government control, authority, and definition. Civil unions for all couples make more sense.

Many liberals would love to see controls exerted to force clerics to perform marriages that go against their belief system.

Polygamy:

A libertarian says if they are consenting aduts, leave them alone. Why should the government dictate to anyone what their living arrangements are? As long as they are not committing fraud or expecting extra welfare benefits because of their arrangement, who cares?

A liberal wants to outlaw polygamy if their is a Mormon basis for it and they call it "marriage." They have no problem with it if it is a group of people in San Francisco doing the same thing with no religious overtones.

As far as abortion is concerned, many libertarians are uncomfortable with the issue. They see it as a personal rights issue. I consider myself somewhat libertarian, but see it this way. When you choose to engage in sex, you have to live with whatever consequences come from that. Also, what are the individual rights of the child? The right of the innocent to live is one of the primary natural rights; their defense is the main job of the government.

Basically you can see that the main difference between the two lies in the fact that libertarians want to government to butt out because it screws up almost any situation. Liberals believe that the answer to any issue is more government. Where do your principles lead you?

Henry Morganthau and How Liberalism Has Changed For the Worse

Henry Morganthau served Franklin Roosevelt as Secretary of the Treasury during World War II. Needless to say, as a faithful practitioner of Judaism, Secretary Morganthau shared with the majority of Americans a deep hatred and disgust for Nazi Germany. Even before the full extent of the Holocaust was revealed by Allied troops, he had devised a plan for postwar Germany.

Morganthau, a liberal in a liberal administration, advocated that Germany be completely deindustrialized. Her factories would be demolished and her economy returned to an agrarian basis. This would serve as a means to prevent any resurgence of German power while punishing her for misdeeds.

What we have seen in this country over the past few decades is a reduction in our national ability to actually do anything. How long does it take to build a power plant? How long does it take to build a road? How many manufacturers have decided to build abroad because they do not want to go through the unending process of permits, studies, public hearings, etc.? Why would they not want to avoid the Byzantine labrynth of federal, state, and local laws as well as the off chance of a ridiculous lawsuit? Once you reach a certain threshold of regulation, how possible is it to avoid committing infractions of some sort?

Liberals do not want industry, at least left wing liberals do not. They take the money and support of unions and then turn around and pass laws, taxes, and pursue policies designed to destroy traditional manufacturing. What they want is clear, an America of forests, farms, and tourist attractions that do not attract many tourists. We wouldn't want to mess up the natural wonders by having too many real people looking at them. They want jobs, but only high tech, academia, health care, and other employment they consider "clean."

In other words they want to do to America what a liberal Secretary of the Treasury once thought was fit as a punishment for one of the most evil regimes in history. So many of the extreme leftists think that we are that as it is, spreading democracy and capitalism as we have.

The Return of the 19th Century Media

In the 19th Century the Newspaper was your only source of news. Many towns had more than one, with names like the Barbour County Democrat, The Oakland Republican, etc. These names were not picked haphazardly, they reflected the views of the newspaper. You bought your newspaper based on its political views. That was how the media ran in the 19th Century.

Through the 20th Century that open bias went underground and was thinly veiled claim of journalistic impartiality. Although if you looked close enough you could often find the bias poking its head through. The problem was the vast majority of the press shifted to the left.

Now at the beginning of the 21st Century it has come full circle and the 19th Century media has returned with a vengeance. MSNBC could very easily change its name to DNBC (Democrat National Broadcasting Corp), or CNN changes it to DNN (Democratic News Network) because that reflects the view point they provide. They complain constantly that Fox News is Republican Network. Well, they would be right. They are providing a different point of view and reaping the financial rewards.

Our nations political views are primarily center right. With the majority of the media hard left, they do not reflect the view point most Americans want to hear. If some one wants to challenge Fox News media dominance, then the way to do that is create a second right leaning network.

In the 21st Century if you're Right, the you watch Fox News, read the internet and listen to talk radio. If you're left then you watch Broadcast news, CNN or MSNBC and read major city newspapers. Now if we could only return a 19th Century sized Federal Government.

Hurrah For the Two Party System!

The two party system attracts a lot of criticism in America.

Some critics hate it because they say the parties are too alike in practice and even in ideology. Is this a bad thing? Our parties, for the most part, agree on quite a bit. They agree on the Constitution, democracy, and most Democrats even agree about capitalism. Would the critics rather have a party or two that was opposed to the entire American system?

The two party system moderates the extremes. Liberals have found that speaking and acting too extreme leads to not being elected to office. Most Americans are moderate and vote for moderate presidential candidates. The triumph of moderation means that change occurs with great deliberation. This too rankles some, but the Founding Fathers designed it this way. We debate and discuss changes sometimes too long, but this is better than fast paced change that comes from poor information or emotional appeals.

Our two party system creates real competition in most areas. Democrats and Republicans must remain true to the voters. The recent Republican Congress lost touch with the voters who rightfully kicked them out of office. Now the GOP has worked hard to return to the basic principles that got them elected in the first place. The Democratic Party has struggled with their extremist wing and will have to figure that issue out before Americans will trust them with foreign policy as they did for much of the twentieth century.

West Virginia desperately needs a two party system. Historically it has vacillated between eras dominated by Republicans or Democrats. Odds are that the passing of the New Deal generation and their children will lead to another swing back to Republican dominance. West Virginia's pattern reflects a tendency of the people to get so fed up with the ruling party that they reject it entirely for a generation or two until they get tired of that regime. State Democrats should be fearful that six of their legislative incumbents ended up tossed out by the voters.

However we do not need complete Republican rule in West Virginia for decades; that would lead to corruption and abuse as well. We need a healthy and vibrant two party system that responds to the voters' needs.

Illegal to be Overweight?

If we need any more indications that what we used to call liberal democracy is on the decline, we just need to look at Japan.

When someone uses the term "liberal democracy" or "classical liberalism" they do not mean the left wing socialist style liberalism that has gained ascendancy in the current Democratic party. Liberalism at one time referred to those who advocated breaking through the restrictive regulations of 18th century mercantilism to create freedom and opportunity for individuals and business. It meant that people needed freedom from government so they could thrive. Individuals and businesses had the freedom to make choices and the responsibility to live with them. There was no contradiction between the fact that these people called themselves "liberal" and that the word derived from the same Latin root that gives us "liberty."

After World War II, societies began exercising their democratic rights to trade away their liberties. In America those advocating more restrictions and less freedoms called themselves "liberals." Europeans traded their economic freedoms for what they felt would be a more orderly economy. The socialist regulatory state resembled Mussolini's Italy more than a classically liberal state. On the Continent this was understandable since real democracy had only existed there a short time. The virus has recently infected Britain, however. Their so-called liberals forced the population to give up their guns. And this country was the origin of the idea of natural rights!

That brings us to Japan. They recently passed legislation that established a national standard for waistlines. Towns and cities that do not meet national standards will face sanctions. Of course this means the people will suffer eventually. This kind of legislation probably appeals to some American nanny staters who would use the power of the state to force people into certain lifestyles. However it reeks more of the physical obsession of states designed by Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini.

The anti freedom virus has infected too many states. We must work to turn back the tide.

Perception and Leadership

I was speaking to former Helping Hands director Cheri Alt the other day. She was discussing the issue of how the middle class is perceived to be shrinking. Alt described how the perception of the middle class most people have appears almost unobtainable to many poor. The effort to reach the next level is overwhelming. This has helped to create a strong perception that America is somehow out of whack and needs some kind of serious adjustment.

First, this made me wonder. What is "middle class?"

It used to be that middle class meant that you had a reliable roof over your head, a decent automobile, and the capability to feed your family and pay your bills. After this, you usually had a little left over every month to save for retirement and a vacation. Sure bills caused stress, but more often than not the family did just fine. Until recently, this was not just middle class, but "the American Dream." This middle class still exists in America. The problem lies in what people perceive as "success." We have revised it upward. Now we don't see ourselves as successful unless we can afford all the latest electronics, a house much larger than necessary, new automobiles, and still not worry about bills. The gap between expectations and reality causes anxiety to many. We stress about what we do not have rather than being thankful for the gifts God gave us. I make the same mistake myself very often.

The media does not help. Its views of middle class have been skewed for a long time. Shows like Roseanne, Mama's Family, and Sanford and Son were meant to represent people who in some way were poor. However all had homes and vehicles. Fred Sanford was even a small business owner. Bill Cosby represented middle class, although to many of us in West Virginia, he certainly appeared rich. The Democrats play upon this anxiety when they announce that the United States has a poor economy.

An expectation of rewards without effort, experience, or proof of competency has also helped create the perception that the economy and society itself has problems. The burgeoning sense of entitlement is the sad result of the 1990s liberal experiment with scholastic self-esteem. Children learned that they were all considered excellent regardless of whether they earned it in any way. The same awards went to everyone regardless of whether the individual had actually done something worthwhile. Effort was given the same praise as competency. Students find a rude awakening when they hit college or real life. The shock comes when professors or employers expect actual results, an end rarely demanded before unless the youngster played in athletics or band.

The liberals demand equality of outcome and they offer government as the solution. Achieve too effectively and watch them cut you down to size. If people get left behind it becomes an indication that something is inherently wrong. No other country in history offers opportunity like the United States in the 21st century, if only people will stand up and seize their chances through hard work from the first they they hit adulthood. We just need to remember as individuals that nothing worthwhile comes without struggle and few lessons are remembered better than those learned because of failure. We also need to thank God for the good things in our lives. We may work hard towards certain goals, but American values do not include a guarantee.

*********************************************************************

Isn't it amazing that even though the Left has dominated higher education for at least the past three decades, the Republican Party continues to turn out better candidates for leadership in presidential elections? Perhaps the universities of practical business (Romney), military style character (John McCain), the school of hard knocks (Mike Huckabee), etc. do a better job creating leaders than academia. It could also reflect the fact that conservatives constantly must defend their principles and beliefs against established authorities while in school. This forces conservatives to think about what they believe in and why. The result is a much more reasonable and capable leader, as opposed to a guy who throws out inane causal linkages and expects them to be believed without question.

When listening to liberal Democrats, always question the assumptions they make in their arguments. It is here, at the foundation, that their logic always fails. They rely on ideas such as collective guilt, conservative or private sector greed as a primary motivating factor, conservative lack of insight as a truth, the idea that individuals pursuing their own success are somehow immoral, the concept that global warming is an acknowledged truth. If you accept their assumptions, their logic is fine and their conclusions are valid. It is their assumptions that defy reality. Take for example the economy. Obama insists we need significant change because the economy is poor. The economy is still growing! Furthermore the Fed says it will pick up by fall. Get your time machine and bring someone in from the 1970s or 1930s and ask them if 2% growth with low interest rates and inflation are bad. That looks like heaven to those folks.

*********************************************************************

A hundred years ago, hucksters sold products called patent medicines. These drugs promised to cure what ailed you, but never informed the customer what composed them. Obama's campaign works on a similar premise. It promises to make you feel better while refusing to offer any substance. Turns out these medicines did make people feel better in the short term because they were chock full of morphine. People get convinced to take the medicines even when they are not ill because the salesmen were extremely slick. A little exercise and better diet would have gone a lot farther than patent medicines.

Republicans offer the reasonable path to a better tomorrow because individuals are expected to work towards their own benefit. Obama offers the patent medicine of government solutions without any expectation of individuals. That's not how this country was founded and built into greatness.

How Powerful Is the Liberal Media?

From time to time people like to question the real power that the liberal media has over public perception. Consider these facts and then think about all the recent stories citing polls that say Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average just topped 14,000 for the first time ever. Our economy has expanded constantly since 2001 despite attack, war, and natural disaster.

The United States has not been attacked since 2001. Sure Al Quaida was just called the most dangerous terror threat to the United States, but that has been the case since the 1990s.

Iraq currently has a government with over a million civil servants. They also have 55,000 police officers with 3,500 graduating into the force every two months. A stock exchange has operated there for almost three years. According to Lieutenant General Graeme Lamb of the British Army, coalition forces now work in various areas to construct economic and political structures that thrive even when they leave. Terrorists have fewer and fewer places to operate as a result.

Thirty years ago the liberal media called attention to starving children in Appalachia. Now it blasts the government for callously letting poor children get too fat.

In what other country at any other time did every individual have so much opportunity to better themselves through education? Well, name a country that did not tax the individual at over 50% once they did make something of themselves.

The people of France and Germany (who we have been told despise the United States) both elected governments in the last few years determined to not only have better relations with America, but reform their economies to be more like the US!

This country is going in the right direction in many ways. The groundwork started with President Reagan who created a foundation of power and prosperity that makes us the envy of the world. Every responsible person should look at our country and the blessings of liberty and opportunity it bestows upon us all and thank the leaders who helped bring us to this point in history. Next year voters need to remember which party has consistently worked for the strengthening of our nation as opposed to condemning basic American values and choose accordingly.

The "Big Lie" Means it is Desperation Time For the Democrats

The "big lie" technique represents one of the biggest weapons in the liberal arsenal when it comes to campaigning. One example lies in 2004 advertisements in Florida blaming President Bush for hurricanes. Democratic strategists believe that if they tell a big enough lie, they can convince voters that maybe part of what they say rings true. "Big lie" campaigning smacks of desperation; it means they have absolutely no rhetorical arrows to fire.

Democrats hauled out the "big lie" over July 4th against Shelley Moore Capito when they accused her of not supporting the troops. They know West Virginia is a state with many sons and daughters in the military and hope this blatant lie can get traction. With few complaints against the incumbent and a weak opponent, Democrats have few options.

In fact Capito has voted consistently to support the troops. She joined with many Democrats, including John Murtha (D) PA in rejecting a raise for the troops that would have drawn from the overall fund for the war. They agreed that drawing the money for raises from the war fund meant troops would lack other necessities. Capito did support a raise at a different time. These accusations against the daughter of a World War II hero are absolutely ludicrous. As much as it must pain Capito and her family to hear such lies disseminated, she must take some heart in the fact that her opponents have no factual issues from which to attack her.

**************************************************************************

In a victory for transperancy and accountability to the taxpayer, Congresswoman Capito also must be saluted for early release of her earmarks request list. They include funds that will assist programs and infrastructure throughout the Eastern Panhandle.