@ CK MacLeod:
"And it doesn’t come close to justifying the criminalization, or worse, of political differences – which is what a lot of this rhetoric that I have been protesting implies, though for now the people spreading it remain afraid to accept or embrace the implications of their own words. If you’re not plotting or prepared to support revolution, then either you don’t really believe what you’re saying – or you need a different way of saying it."
The 'criminalization' of political differences to which you refer is based in the arguably correct perception that the 'solutions' favored by the left necessarily entail the reductions of fundamental freedoms and are being pursued in an essentially undemocratic and unconstitutional manner.
Notice that in the main, those on the left do not accuse those on the right of pursuing extra-constitutional tactics but rather of being mean-spirited, greedy, racist and ignorantly self-obsessed. All personal accusations not substantive, issue oriented accusations.
The overwhelming collaboration of the MSM in acting as the Democrats 'propaganda ministry' unconscionably 'tilts the playing field' in favor of the left. They are and have been for decades lying to the American public, mostly through omission and distortion of the facts, to further their liberal agenda.
When the left acts in a consistent pattern of dishonesty to further an agenda that the majority of the American people do not support, they eventually self-create the very demonization you abhor.
The last thing any loyal American would wish to see is a civil war or revolution entailing violence. That naturally produces a strong reluctance to 'cross the Rubicon' before it becomes absolutely unavoidable. There is still time to reverse what the left is trying to do and many of us are hopeful that we can right the ship of state.
Should that effort fail, I can assure you that psychologically, it is entirely predictable that the left will eventually force the issue, as it's in their nature. That is because the left needs to control people and circumstance, for at their core they believe that if they can only control people and circumstance enough, they can make life be 'just' enough.
"Until the economic apocalypse is upon us, then the idea that our current level of debt will cause such an apocalypse is an hypothesis."
Technically, yes that's true. Implicit within your statement however is the assertion that the only way we can know we'll suffer economic collapse is after it happens. Hindsight is 20/20 but is a poor survival technique. We can (and are) morally ignore the repercussions for future generations and live off of their inheritance. At some point however, the piper must be paid and the longer the bill is delayed, the greater the final cost.
The repercussions of the very high debt to GDP ratio of WWII was greatly ameliorated by the unique position the US enjoyed, 'factory to a devastated world'. The Marshall plan also helped, providing an outlet for American industry.
I'm no economist but am a great believer in the efficacy of principle. Economics are not that complicated until people start to 'get clever'. When they do, all kinds of complicating factors get introduced, which muddy the waters of economic cause and effect.
There are not one set of economic principles for individuals and companies and another set for nations. The ability of nations to put off the day of reckoning is facilitated by their ability to print money. But eventually that day cannot be delayed any longer. That just happened in Greece and economic collapse was only avoided by outside interference.
Were it just one or two fiscally irresponsible nations they might continue the charade indefinitely but the fiscal irresponsibility now encompasses literally every western nation and the 'lender' nations face increasingly unsustainable budgets.
The day of reckoning is coming and given the socio-economic factors in play, it's virtually certain to end with collapse. Regrettably, the undeniable, prima facie evidence you seek C.K. will only be recognizable in hindsight.
@ Zoltan Newberry:
I'm a 100% born and raised American. I like the name too but it's a partial nome de plume. Geoffrey is my actual first name and the entomology of my actual last name is 'man from the land of Briton'.
I also have British ancestry on one side, so it seemed appropriate.
I suspect the Queen's avoidance in visiting Israel may be intentional. Prince Charles had to have gotten his antipathy toward Israel from somewhere. That's supposition of course but there's frequently fire where there's smoke.
@ CK MacLeod:
Would that it were a hypothesis but we are well past the point where Obama can pee on our heads and tell us its raining. The 'hypothesis' is now the only theory that fits the facts and, your evident unwillingness to face the writing on the wall... changes that 'future history' rushing at us, not a whit.
As a Senator, Obama railed against deficits and debt. He said America has a debt problem and that it was a failure of leadership not to address it. That establishes prior knowledge.
Obama has presumably knowledgeable economic advisers and any adviser who suggests that through some Keynesian magic the US can sustain support of debt in 2020 that eats up 90% of US GDP (CBO) is smoking crack.
It strains credulity far past the point of breaking to suggest that Obama doesn't know exactly what he's doing. You can't spend your way out of debt and a nation can't massively borrow its way to prosperity. "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
Please consider C.K. that by the time you have prima facie evidence of Obama's mendacity it will be far too late to avoid that fate. Quite a gamble you're taking there...
What you define as "an insistence on seeing political adversaries as political objects rather than as thinking subjects" I would define as simply looking at their 'fruits' to determine their intentions and motivations. Could you be doing a bit of, "you're unreasonably hardheaded, but my opinions are firmly grounded"?
Over on the neo-neocon blog, this is defined as the 'fool vs knave' conundrum when trying to understand Obama behavior. I too wondered which it might be and for quite a long time came down on the side of Obama simply being an educated 'fool'.
I now maintain that to be an insupportable position given his behavior and, the virtually certain 'fruits' that shall obtain from that behavior. For confirmation of those consequential fruits, simply look to Europe, the economic canary in the coal mine.
@ Fourstring Casady:
Clearly, you didn't read carefully what I posited fourstring.
You state, "Your reduction to all leftists are whining emotionally-retarded Commie control-freak useful idiots" and compellingly demonstrate my assertion, "Those who fail to distinguish between the left and liberals either unjustly paint liberals as leftists or absolve leftists as simply well-meaning liberals."
To restate my position; those on the far left are about power, “Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.”
Liberals are all about an emotional protest against life's essential unfairness. That infantile inability to accept what is, prevents them from appreciating the absolute necessity for life's inequality of outcomes. As just one example of many; without evolution's 'unfair' beneficial individual mutations... life would be stuck in the stage of the amoeba.
The left uses liberals to advance their aims, thus they are Stalin's 'useful idiots' and taking that personally prevents you from dispassionately considering whatever value it may hold.
How can Obama's actions, in regard to the economy, be anything other than intentional? He has to know the long term effect of his deficits. He has to know that they will lead to economic collapse.
Anyone willing to essentially destroy the economy harbors malevolence towards its citizens. They may well rationalize it as necessary to build anew a more just world but under that cool rationality, beats an angry heart.
Those who fail to distinguish between the left and liberals either unjustly paint liberals as leftists or absolve leftists as simply well-meaning liberals.
The left has to reduce freedom because a free people will never agree to, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Anyone who fails to understand the core need of the left to control others, fails to understand the left.
All ism's of the left spring from an abandonment in the belief in a beneficent, providential creator.
Philosophically, that abandonment leads to a consequent conclusion; this.is.all.there.is... and the corollary belief that the primary obstacle to a better world is the recalcitrance of those in power and the ignorance of those who vote against their own self-interest.
The 'left' seeks power as they are one side of Jefferson's, "Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes." They perfectly exemplify Milton's Lucifer in Paradise Lost, "Better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven"
Liberals are Stalin's 'useful idiots' suffering from arrested emotional development, motivated by the child's eternal cry of protest, "But it's not fair!"
Each is philosophically opposed to the existential reality within which they exist and both believe that if they can only control people and circumstance enough, they can make life be fair and/or good enough.