Superiority Mentality of Randist Rhetoric clearly evident
When It Comes To Hate, The Left Beats The Right, Hands Down
Tries to psychoanalyze “the angry left” as simply projecting their own failure:
The Angry Left’s vision of puppet masters who pull the strings comes from a deeper cause: a feeling of personal inadequacy. “Some sinister forces out there are robbing me of my just deserts.”
When such a person finds one of his desires thwarted–when he doesn’t get a promotion at work, when his “green” investments turn sour–he defends against it with his mantra: “The good have no chance in this world, the selfish bastards are too powerful.”
And when you see rage at the idea of honoring the successful…you are witnessing the ressentiment of those who secretly regard themselves as failures, whatever their outward success, and are desperately struggling to bury the knowledge that they themselves are responsible for their fate. Hatred for the achievers is the outward projection of their own self-loathing.
But just about everything he claims the left says, you can find from the Right, and the Right has been far louder, at least in the past 35 years.
So what is it what the Right trashes Obama as a POS, and LIAR (see how they defend Bush from people calling him a liar on WMD’s) and all the other stuff? It’s that he’s simply WRONG (a “socialist”), and we’re speaking the TRUTH.
This link was from another FB friend, who had been quiet since Obama won the second term, but has stepped up the posting recently. From the other guy, who’s always posting every day, I had just gotten this one right before seeing the Forbes link:
Will someone explain how anyone group winds up begin so right? Is it still divine election? (Most of these writers are not coming from a religious angle, and this one is a heavy advocate of Ayn Rand. Another article is “Capitalism Without God: Freedom Is A Secular But Absolute Value”).
One great response in the comments:
It is no doubt true that you get a fair number of illiterate hate mail messages; however you are generalizing excessively. Pretty much anyone who expresses an opinion on a public site will get such messages. It sure seems as if the world has gone nuts, but really it is only the 39 people who bothered to write to you you can be sure of. Most people I imagine read your comments and roll their eyes, those how don’t mentally say “Right on”.
Currently the left, as you put it, has no public voice. The right accuses the mainstream media and academia of being the organized voice of the left, and indeed over the last forty or so years the right have deliberately and specifically organized countervailing organizations. But the fundamental difference is that academia got to the position of supporting the “Liberal” position because that’s the way it rolls when you specifically try to figure out the best way of behaving. They didn’t start with the need to somehow justify a liberal stance. The right, on the other hand did explicitly set up to support a conservative, or rightist stance. Harvard wasn’t set up as a bastion of liberal thinking – it just turned out that way because that’s the way intelligent people tend to (not always, but mostly) think. The Heritage foundation (to take one example) was explicitly set up to provide intellectual backing for a pre-existing point of view. The result is that anyone with a smidgeon of intellectual honesty has to take the Harvard position as being much less likely corrupted by bias than the Heritage position.
On the left it seems that the right has explicitly set up organizations to promulgate their point of view, and it is indisputable that this is in fact the case.
The right, having seen that it is possible and practical to do this, now apparently considers that the left has done what they themselves did, and blames them for it.
The difference is that the left didn’t. The right is essentially a propaganda machine bankrolled by a number of extremely wealthy individuals and organizations – the left is a heterogeneous collection of organizations and individuals wondering what happened. Sure there are a few powerful and rich people on the left, but nothing like those on the right.
Then, on the side, I find this article:
Give Back? Yes, It’s Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%
As I say in “Makers-Takers”, it is CLEAR that the mindset of these people is identical to the slaveowners of old.
For their enormous contributions to our standard of living, the high-earners should be thanked and publicly honored. We are in their debt. Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, it’s too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
And, at a deeper level, it is the monstrous perversion of justice that makes the IRS possible: an envy-ridden moral code that damns success, profit, and earning money in voluntary exchange.
An end must be put to the inhuman practice of draining the productive to subsidize the unproductive. An end must be put to the primordial notion that one’s life belongs to the tribe, to “the community,” and that the superlative wealth-creators must do penance for the sin of creating value.
It glosses over all the negative stuff these big banks and others have done, and now even acts like the entire IRS is only there to give disenfranchised people someone else’s money! (When one thinks of the big bad tax collector coming after you, we don;t think of him as the protector of the poor!)
One good response:
To say that a community doesn’t exist because it consists of a series of individuals is like saying there is no such thing as a forest, just a stand of trees. It’s childish and incorrect. Like it or not, you are a member of a community, of several in fact. Rand’s figures are fictional. Real life entrepreneurs don’t live on a cloud and teleport their ideas into reality.
Is that what you’re doing when you coerce someone into an economic contract that leverages their desperation against them? Is that what company stores were doing, those who bound employees into commodity debt through price making and total dependence on the company? Is that what feudal lords were doing when they forced the tenant farmer to give his daughters virginity to the lord of the manor and the lionshare of his crops? Respecting their rights? I’m sure you say it was, you could have left them to starve or forced them through threats of immediate rather than future violence.
Democracy, unions, communities and so on are just doing unto you far better than you would do unto us. We’re balancing the scales rather than having them tipped against us. This is how society truly moves forward, class struggle. If we did as you wish and acquiesced the world would be lucky to have gotten past the renaissance.
No society, thank god, recognizes the rights of people to do whatever they want. That would be a tautology, you could just call it the jungle.
And my combined response to both:
Both here and in the “leftist hate” article, I see the tendency to make one side all good, and the other all bad. This one makes “the powerful” out to be almost faultless, and glosses over a lot of the harm they have done, and that climbing to the top often involves more than just “sacrifice” or “delayed gratification” (they’re probably gratifying themselves a lot on the way up), but rather other things like timing (who you know, etc), talent and ever temperament (personality), and a lot of dirty dealing at times as well, including cronyism where they buy out politicians and their own kind of “welfare”. All of this is ignored. The people pointing it out are just in one broad sweep, “envious”.
Nobody is saying that nobody should be richer. The charge from the Left is that their wealth has gone up tremendously, and far greater than whatever value they are creating. A lot of quality has gone down (planned obsolescence and other cost cutting methods, including cheap overseas labor, etc), yet the profits rise as the Right keeps blaming someone else for all the financial problems.
But over and over, I keep seeing it all attributed solely to some depth of character on the part “the rich”, which everyone else is then judged as lacking.
So then, people have come to blame everything on the poor (with the accusations they don’t want to work, and are thus simply trying too get everything for free), and these articles go along with that by saying the 1% are the ones who are “due”, (and in fact don’t have enough), and that everyone under them are a bunch of spoiled envious self-loathing parasites. I’m seeing a clear superiority mentality, and while you may not have said “slavery should come back”, you can see a similar view of “the inferior little people” who owe the powerful something; hence that’s why the left reacts to this philosophy as if it did push for slavery.
So the Right have been saying just as much, or really more “The good have no chance in this world, the selfish bastards are too powerful”, only making the “powerful” the poor, aided by their leftist advocates who are only “using them for votes”.
Which is more ludicrous? Blaming the rich and powerful, or blaming the poor? [and if “blaming”=”envying”:] Envying the rich and powerful, or envying the poor? (Wouldn’t we all like “free rides”? Wow; ‘how good they have it’, so many obviously seethe in anger! And even if the poor were getting so much money; by spending it up, on whatever frivolity they are often accused, they would be the ones putting it back into the economy. They do not have the power to SIT on the money, or take it out of the country, like these global corporations do).
Yet if saying it’s the rich is just a reflection of one’s own failure; then what’s blaming the poor? Sounds like deflection to me, by those trying to get everyone (“the community” I may dare, which the article puts down the “liberal” notion of) fighting each other, making it easier for them to have control.
So these articles ignore that in how pointing out what the other side does, you do the same things.
The hatred toward Obama has been far louder than any hatred toward anyone else. They call him a “liar” far more than Bush gets called a liar. And while the left may have stepped up some conspiracy rhetoric, it nowhere near matches what the Right has been doing for generations. I hear the term “leeches” coming strictly from the Right, aimed at the entire “47%” if not the 99%! As the guy in the comments of the other post said, the left has been rather silent in comparison (which the Right often acknowledges, taking it as proof the left has no answer to the Right’s [monopolized] “truth”).
It’s so ironic how the other article even talks about “projection”. We all have a “shadow” (the darkness that gets projected), and when you point at someone else, you’re pointing back at yourself, and the more fervent, the deeper it is. Nobody has mastered any “truth” THAT much.
How Republicans Have Trashed The Economy, In 1 Chart