- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Some of you may be aware that I am a member of the SFWA, a poorly constructed acronym for the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. As such, I tend to find the occasional foray into the mentality of the American liberal to be a fascinating exercise in alien thought.
It is truly interesting to swim in the deep morass of a complete absence of logic, historical knowledge and consistency. Some might consider this to be an unfair overstatement, but it’s pretty easy to prove that this is anything but the case.
Take, for example, the notion of the Iraqi war and occupation. At the onset of war, the left-liberal’s protests revolved around the “No blood for oil” cry. This one idiotic phrase manages the trifecta – and please bear in mind, I have been calling for an end to the occupation for some time now.
We’ll start with logic. The notion that the president ordered the invasion of Iraq to take control of its oil supplies does not make sense on two counts. First, we pay for oil in dollars, which except for the cost of inflation, are essentially free to the U.S. government. But since Alan Greenspan was preaching we were teetering on the brink of a deflationary precipice, even that minor cost was no constraint in 2002. It’s not necessary to invade if you can simply run the printing press at will. Second, the price of oil, at $41 per barrel, is $16 higher than it was prior to the invasion, which completely defeats the postulated purpose of invading to ensure cheap oil supplies.
History, too, was ignored. America already held the oil fields of Kuwait and Iraq in its grasp in 1991. There was nothing to prevent the U.S. military from retaining its control over the oil fields – the fact that it readily relinquished what was already in its possession strongly indicated that Americans have no need to take what it can buy, especially if it can buy it in paper dollars created out of debt.
Finally, the lack of consistency demonstrated in the “no blood for oil” cry is illuminated by left-liberal opposition to drilling in Alaska. Oil pumped from there would cost no blood, and, according to the theory postulated by liberals, the increased supply would thereby relieve America of any need to go to war. Thus, deceit is revealed along with the illogic, ignorance and inconsistency, as “no oil, period” would be a more honest battle cry.
In the context of the three I’s, John Kerry is the perfect standard bearer for American liberalism. He is supremely illogical, calling for the United Nations to manage a situation that is far more potentially explosive than the many tamer situations in which it has completely failed in the past. Indeed, the despicable depths to which the United Nations sank in its Iraqi oil-for-food scandal is exceeded only by its sex-for-food scandal in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
John Kerry also has ignorance down pat. No one of any political stripe who condemns tax cuts during a time of potential recession can claim to have even a glimmering of an economic clue, as this is straight out of the Keynesian textbook – if you’re easing the money supply, you should also be cutting taxes and increasing spending – and, of course, we Austrians always favor more money in private hands.
And as for inconsistency, anyone with a lifetime ADA rating of 93 who tries to claim that he is not a liberal well deserves the title of Monsieur Flip-Flop. This is in addition to his much-chronicled flip-flops on the Iraqi war, the marriage penalty, the Patriot Act, homogamy, the death penalty, affirmative action, gasoline taxes, abortion, election reform and NAFTA.
George Bush does not deserve re-election. I’d much rather see a man of confirmed principle such as Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party or Aaron Russo of the Libertarian party in the White House. But as the great work of the public schools remains incomplete, the president is fortunate that only those handicapable individuals possessed of the Three I’s of Liberalism will be supporting his main rival.