Fresh Agitprop From The DNC

About a month ago, I received an email from the Democratic National Committee with the subject line, “Can we send you a sticker?”[Note 1] The Democrats were showing off their new logo by giving away bumper stickers:

Friend --

So far, nearly 100,000 supporters from around the country have asked us to send them a Democrats sticker with our new look.

Soon, they’ll start turning up on the bumpers of cars and tractor trailers, on cubicle dividers and dorm room walls.

Image from email received from the Democratic National Committee.

The note presented numerous reminders that it is “our shared commitment to change that matters,” and that in electing Barack Obama, “Democrats made a choice to embrace the fight for change.” What such a message lacks in substance it makes up for in revealing the depth--which is to say, the shallowness--of the Democrats’ view of America.

What, according to Democrats, exactly is fundamental to our nation? Individual rights? The freedom to think and act according to one’s judgment? The liberty to live one’s life, keep the property one has earned, and pursue one’s happiness? No. “Change is the inescapable driver of history in the United States.”

In short, a change in the Democratic Party logo is intended to remind us of . . . well, change. To Democrats, it is “change that amplifies our focus on renewing the foundations that make this country great.”[Note 2, emphasis mine on all quotes.]

If Democrats had even the foggiest notion of the foundations that make this country great, there might be a hint of a positive sign in this last sentence, even with its vapid notion that change qua change is a magic tonic that will fix things by “amplifying focus.” (Evidently, about the half the voters of this country are placated by, and even enthusiastically applaud, such meaningless sentences.) But Democrats do not have any idea about what makes the United States great.[Note 3] It is with good reason that phrases like “the inescapable driver of history in the United States” roll naturally off their tongues. It reflects the Democrat's world view: the deterministic historical materialism of Marx and its collectivist notion that class conditions determine the content of human consciousness.

Democrats are driven by the so-called “progressive” ideals that emerged at the turn of the 20th century. (It is probably over-generous to say that modern Democrats are driven by ideas at all because thinking is not required by one who drifts obediently from one feeling to the next.) “Progressivism” is anathema to America. The single fundamental principle underpinning the United States is individual rights--the right to one’s life, liberty, and property. Recognizing that the biggest threat to Americans was not foreigners or criminals but the government itself, the Founders established a government charged with one responsibility: safeguarding individual rights. Democrats have turned this purpose of government on its head. They see the government as the caretaker of its citizens--the provider, the regulator, the leveler. Thus, the government has steadily been transformed from the institution that protects rights to the legal instrument of rights violations.

Image from GlobalResearch.ca.

The thing that is most surprising and disturbing to me about their new logo is the apparent confidence of Democrats that many Americans will swallow their message if it is undisguised. I would have guessed that if Democrats were interested in doing some “damage control” by presenting a new image, they would have tried to conceal their anti-American views by hiding behind a red-white-and-blue, American-as-apple-pie logo--something unambiguously patriotic. This is especially true in the face of a likely drubbing at the polls in November and the emergence of the Tea Party, which is itself the most promising mainstream indicator today that there still exist many Americans that are not yet willing to let the government run their lives.

Image from Wikipedia entry for “Portal: United Nations.”

I am a little stunned to see the Democrats introduce a logo that boldly trumpets the light blue of capitulation and apology. It is the blue that adorns the helmet and beret of United Nations "peacekeepers." It is the blue of the 20-euro note, the blue of the $5 food stamp. It is the blue achieved by diluting the canton of the American flag with the white flag of surrender, a mixture favored by intellectuals. Even Barack Obama’s publicity team seemed to recognize the need to incorporate red, white, and blue into the President’s logo (though the blue is more United Nations blue than American-flag blue, and in my opinion, the design is more evocative of the agrarian, hammer-and-sickle idealism of a peasant or proletarian revolution than the American ideal of individual achievement).

Image from My.BarackObama.com.

Notwithstanding the insistence of intellectuals that try to pin the failures of Democrats on “public relations” problems[Note 4], it is the Democrats that are experts at manipulating public opinion. Indeed, because their ideas are utterly bankrupt, an appeal to envy and resentment is all they have. Leftists--progressives, modern liberals, socialists, and democrats--have a virtual monopoly in the universities and the media. I do not underestimate their ability to gauge public opinion, which is precisely why I am a little concerned not only that they would unveil a slick logo that looks like it would fit neatly on the armband of a new Civilian Service Corps uniform, but that they would think it is a good idea. I hope they are dreadfully wrong.

NOTES

1. I have no idea how I originally got on the Democratic Party mailing list, but I keep it up for the maintenance of that wise saw, “Know thy enemy.” The same goes for the Republican National Committee.

2. All quotes are from an email chain from DNC Chariman Tim Kaine and Jen O’Malley Dillon. I believe Ms. O’Malley Dillon is the executive director of the DNC.

3. In order to not let Republicans off the hook, I will here repeat the point I have made many times. Republicans do not know what makes America great any more than Democrats do if they think the United States is “a Christian nation,” that American values are at root Judeo-Christian values, that God is the source of rights, or that the Ten Commandments inform truth, justice, and the American way.

4. Sara Robinson, “Building the Progressive Brand,” The New Republic, 10 Oct 2010, http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/78278/building-the-progressive-brand.

Marc Faber - Mirror, Mirror on the Wall

I’ll have to listen to this excellent Marc Faber lecture at least once or twice more; there is a lot to digest.

The lecture is rather long, but I highly recommend listening to the whole thing. To motivate my readers (yes, both of you!) to do so, I’ll tease you with the fact that Faber makes some extremely sobering and significant points a little before the fifteen-minute mark and a few minutes after the one-hour point.

Building Bridges

Today’s Wall Street Journal had a remarkable opinion piece by M. Zudhi Jasser, a doctor and former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander. Nine years after the September 11 atrocity, this is the first—that’s right, the first—significant defense of America by a Muslim man that I have heard.

Dr. Jasser wrote:

In relation to Ground Zero, I am an American first, a Muslim second, just as I would be at Concord, Gettysburg, Normandy Beach, Pearl Harbor or any other battlefield where my fellow countrymen lost their lives. . .

We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state. [Note 1, emphasis mine.]

Because I am so accustomed to the euphemistic “bridge-building” talk of so-called “moderate” Muslims, my initial shock gave way to a wonder whether these were simply words calculated (as usual) to placate defenders of freedom. But I don’t think so. The article so piercingly identifies the need to subordinate religious sentiments to the rule of rights-respecting law, I think it is genuine.

There are some more gems in the essay. Dr. Jasser, who opposes building a mosque at Ground Zero wrote, “…it is not a right to make one’s religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero.”[Again, emphasis mine.] Also, he explicitly links the allegedly moderate political activities of Islamists with their militant goals. “Islamists in ‘moderate’ disguise are still Islamists.”

image from Wikipedia entry for “Corvus (weapon).”

During the Punic Wars, the ancient Romans had an indomitable army but their Carthaginian enemy was superior at sea. How does an army fight a navy? The Romans devised the boarding bridge as a means of fighting a ground war on the water. A Roman ship would pull alongside a Carthaginan vessel close enough to drop the bridge, which had a huge “tooth” or spike at the end, onto the enemy deck. This would bind the two ships together, permitting Roman soldiers to storm the Carthaginian vessel, thus turning the sea battle to their strength of land combat.

We do not need to “build bridges” between Islamists and the West, as Imam Rauf and self-loathing Western intellectuals would have us do. Metaphorically, the sort of “bridge” desired by Imam Rauf and others is the boarding bridge—the only purpose of which is to permit 9^th century barbarians to storm a vessel populated by the descendents of Enlightenment thinkers. The only difference between the ancient Roman bridge and the modern Islamist bridge is that at least the Romans did not expect their enemy to build the contraption for them and meekly offer their throats for slaughter.

With the evidence of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, the truth and justice of reason, liberty, and capitalism are plain for all to see. Muslims do not need a “bridge” to gain access to freedom; they simply have to want it and earn it—something only Dr. Jasser and perhaps a handful of others seem to understand. And we Americans, who on the whole have lost our compass and must struggle to right our own ship, certainly have nothing to gain from extending a “bridge” to Islamists who want to wipe individual rights out of existence.

I could hardly have expected a more encouraging sign than this article on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the September 11th attack. If there are in fact many more Muslims like Dr. Jasser, they must have the courage to speak out now.

NOTES

1. M. Zudhi Jasser, “Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim,” Wall Street Journal, Friday, September 10, 2010, p. A17.

Regulation Begets More Regulation

My jaw dropped when I read the second paragraph of a Wall Street Journal article today. The story paraphrased Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s pitch for the government to guarantee home mortgages: “The private sector’s ‘full retreat’ from the mortgage market over the past three years provides a ‘compelling illustration’ of what would happen without some government role, [Geithner] said.”[Note 1, emphasis mine.]

The collapse of the housing market illustrates what would happen without government involvement? How can anyone read this with a straight face?

The government caused the housing crisis. As Yaron Brook put it, “For decades, Washington promoted homeownership by people who couldn’t afford it; think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, tax incentives to buy homes, housing subsidies for the needy, among other programs.”[Note 2.]

It is true that Geithner grudgingly admitted in the press conference that “alongside broader failures,” (which he leaves unnamed), the government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a part in the crisis by creating a “race to the bottom” with lax underwriting standards. But Geithner cannot even imagine a market that is not controlled by the government. With the most disgusting Obama-esque pretense of actually considering an iota of freedom, Geithner dismisses the idea that “[s]ome suggest that, as a government, we have provided too much support for housing,” with the bold executive decision, “It’s safe to say there’s no clear consensus yet on how best to design a new system.”[Note 3.]

Upon which Tim Geithner assumed that Tim Geithner is the best guy to design a new system.

NOTES

1. “Geithner Makes Case for U.S. Role in Mortgages,” Wall Street Journal, 18 Aug 2010, p. A6.

2. Yaron Brook, “Atlas Shrugged and the Housing Crisis that Government Built,” published in Fusion Magazine, Vol. 4, Issue 8, March 2009, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=24013.

3. “Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner Opening Remarks at the Conference on the Future of Housing Finance - As Prepared for Delivery,” US Treasury Department, 17 Aug 2010, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg830.htm.