Liberal Intolerance

At first glance liberal intolerance feels like a contradiction in terms. Isn't liberalism the soul of tolerance, even to the point of worshiping diversity?

Yes and no. Today's liberals are happy to extend the helping hand of tolerance to anyone who belongs to a disadvantaged minority or who can claim to be a victim of the system. This does not mean that they want to help the poor. More often they seem to be looking for sad stories that make for good propaganda, the better to further their cause.

No one should be surprised at Dr. Helen Smith's column on how many liberals lack empathy for those who disagree with their ideas and feel that they have the right to treat them disrespectfully. Link here.

Liberalism is not about people; it is about loving ideas more than people. When liberal policies fail, good liberals do not go back to the drawing board. They see themselves challenged to produce a logical contortion that explains why they are not at fault.

When it comes to dealing with those who take exception to liberal orthodoxy, many of today's liberals are intolerant to an extreme. If liberalism began in the nineteenth century by asserting the value of freedom, today's true liberals are really libertarians. Old style liberals believed in free markets, free trade, free speech, and the free and open exchange of ideas. Many of today's liberals believe in none of it.

Why are liberals so disrespectful of opposing viewpoints? I will leave it to forensic psychologists like Dr. Helen to determine whether or not their behavior rises to the level of psychopathy. For my part I am comfortable saying that it is a character flaw, a piece of dysfunctional behavior that has become a bad habit for far too many people.

If good adult behavior in society involves learning how to negotiate differences, the inability to respect opposing points of view, to the point of slandering and shunning those that hold them, is anything but good behavior. Anyone who acts that way in business or in a relationship will soon discover that refusing to respect the feelings and thoughts of others will quickly lead to major system failure.

I will stipulate that no one is saying that all liberals are intolerant louts. Yet, far too many are, and if you are a Republican or a libertarian living among liberal Democrats you have undoubtedly been visited with the a full dose of liberal contempt.

You might be attending a New York dinner party. Good food and good conversation all around. Until the moment when one of the guests manages to blurt out that she is pro-life. A palpable hush descends on the table. No one had ever suspected such a thing. Everyone had thought that she belonged, that she was one of them, that she was one of the crowd. Now, without saying a word they are all thinking that she is a misogynist or a fanatic, or both, and that she really does not belong in polite company.

No one engages her in conversation. No one asks her to explain how she came to her belief. She has just sworn heretical allegiance to an alien god. For her deviation she will be slandered and shunned.

If you favor Obama's health plan, you have recently been told, by Frank Rich in the New York Times, that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. If you follow Rich's suggestion-- believe me, I feel sorry for you if you do-- you will slander and shun any of your friends whose opposition to Obamacare has just revealed their true racist feelings.

Among the other forms of liberal slander, we find the notion that people who doubt the validity of man-made global warming are equivalent to holocaust deniers. We all know the right way to treat holocaust deniers.

If someone in your presence admits to having voted for George Bush, you should only stick around long enough to call him a war criminal. If he protests and offers to engage a conversation, you must either shout him down or immediately vacate the premises.

As Dr. Helen says, once you have been stigmatized with one of these labels, there will be no fellow feeling, no wish to understand your position, no suggestion that you might have a valid argument or two. You will be treated as a pariah, as subhuman, and you will be shunned.

It is a nasty business, one that is, as Dr. Helen explains, very, very difficult to deal with, and one that has absolutely nothing to do with the marketplace of ideas. Nor does it have anything to do with persuasion, deliberation, discussion, or debate.

It's purpose is not to clarify issues or to arrive at a truth that all can acknowledge. When people threaten you with slander and ostracism they are trying to enforce ideological conformity. Nothing more or less.

This habit of slander and shun comes to us from the great totalitarian socialist governments and their practice of thought reform, also known as brainwashing.

But brainwashing involves more than slander and shun. It is most effective when it holds out a carrot of redemption, a pot of emotional gold, for those who renounce their deviant beliefs and adhere to the liberal orthodoxy. And they must also renounce their non-liberal friends and colleagues and family members.

If you have been cast out of polite society or slandered by the media for being a red necked cretin, there are two things that can transform you into a brilliant statesman, a man of discerning judgment and exception insight. You need first to announce that you have changed your mind and have seen the error of your ways. To make your conversion convincing you must also denounce those who were your former comrades. Not once, not twice, but systematically.

What does it look like in practice. Examine the case of John McCain. Didn't John McCain become a media darling, a favorite on the Sunday talk shows, by denouncing Republicans, and especially by reveling in every opportunity to stick a finger in the eye of the Bush administration.

Many would say that John McCain was simply evincing good character and independent judgment. The problem is that when your actions place you in opposition to those in power, you are going to have a problem adjusting to being the one in power. Conscience is well and good, but consistent opposition turns quickly into disloyalty, and that is none too attractive in a presidential candidate. Besides if you made yourself into someone who your leader could barely trust, how can you, become a leader, trust those who are supposed to be your followers.

But perhaps I am being too hard on McCain. I would answer this point by asking how well McCain's good character served him when, during his presidential campaign, he was confronted with a major financial crisis? Did McCain show character in a crisis or did he indulge an empty theatrical gesture, like suspending his campaign and trying to call off a presidential debate?

Could it be that McCain's constant tweaking Republicans was more a sell out to media pressure and less a sign of good character.

As Dr. Helen reminds us, good character involves standing up for what you believe, speaking up and speaking out... especially against attempts to threaten you into changing your opinion. The ability to stand tall and proud when threatened with social oblivion is true courage indeed.

As she also says, it is best not to try to engage in people who insist that ideological conformity is the price of admission into their club. Better to find a different club or a different community. No one should suffer fools gladly and no one should be cowed by social pressure. When someone systematically disrespect you there comes a time when enough is enough.

Once upon a time there was only the mainstream media. At that time, the pressure on politicians to conform to its media bias was enormous. With the advent of Fox News, however, the the mainstream media's monopoly was broken, and its ability to dictate the right opinions to politicians was fatally compromised. By the time Fox News came into existence liberal intellectuals had discovered how to influence opinion through their control of the media and the classroom.

The greatest crime of Fox News was reopening the marketplace of ideas, to the detriment of the mainstream media. Some people will never forgive it.

One final point: how do you know whether someone's disrespect is a real expression of the person's character or is simple mimicry? When people are disrespectful to you, you normally will try to give them a second chance to mend their ways. You might even give them a third chance. But after a time you will discover that you are wasting your time, your energy, and your own character by descending into their own slime.

Surely, it is correct to turn the other cheek, but after a while you are going to run out of cheeks.

Christopher Hitchens Finds God

Have you noticed how many self-proclaimed atheists are having a religious experience when they hear Barack Obama?

Often they do not support his policies or defend his candidacy on the basis of experience and accomplishments. Yet, they find themselves carried away, in ecstasy or rapture, over the thought that he is going to redeem the nation and save our souls.

If you ask them why they are supporting Obama, they will often reply that they despise Sarah Palin for belonging to an extremist religious cult.

In some case this support looks like an all-out conversion experiences. Take Christopher Hitchens, a writer who has led the culture war against Islamic fascism, but who also, as a full-throated defender of atheism, hates all things holy.

Perhaps Hitchens conversion does not rate with the moment when St. Paul was struck blind on the road to Damascus, but it must have taken every ounce of his intellectual fortitude to throw his inconsiderable support behind Barack Obama, a candidate whose supporters have often taken the other side of the war on terror, and whose appeal is based on the trinity of faith, hope, and charity.

Among the intelligentsia Hitchens has counted as one of the staunchest defenders of the war in Iraq. The man who was most responsible for the policy change that has brought us to the verge of a positive outcome in Iraq was John McCain. Were it not for John McCain, Hitchens' intellectual reputation would have gone down to ignominious defeat in the Iraqi quagmire.

And what honor does John McCain receive for having stood up to the masses of people calling for withdrawal from Iraq? In his column supporting Obama, Hitchens portrays McCain as a doddering, wheezing fool, a man without character or substance, a tired old lion breathing his last pathetic breath on the public stage.

Not too long ago John McCain was practically the only public figure who insisted on victory in Iraq. Does this show a lack of character? Why would it take less character for McCain to promote the surge than it did for Obama to vote to cut off funding for the troops?

Does Hitchens know what character is or has he been blinded by the light emanating from the One? One can only hope and pray that his recent spa treatments did not turn his brain into New Age mush.

If character is the issue, then how do you defend a man who pledged to accept public financing of his campaign and then went back on his word because he could get away with it? Is a man who does not keep his word trustworthy? Does he evince integrity and honor?

And how do you maintain your atheist bona fides when you are supporting a candidate who says that he has a "righteous wind" at his back.

As many have already noted, how do you defend a candidate who worshipped at the Church of Jeremiah, marched to Washington behind Lewis Farrakhan, and is supported by Hamas, Hugo Chavez, and the Iranian theocrats?

Hitchens explains it all in his own inimitable way. The reason he is going to align himself with Jeremiah Wright's parishioner is simple: John McCain is an old fool and Sarah Palin once attended a Pentacostal church.

I would not call Hitchens a pious hypocrite. I would not even call him an impious hypocrite. I will not suggest that he is being opportunistic or that he has simply tired of being the lone intellectual voice arguing for the fight against Islamic fascism. I would not even say that he has been swept away on the great emotional tide of Obama-ism.

No, I would never accuse so fine and productive a writer of crass, undignified motives. After all, that would suggest that he was a man without character.

I prefer to think that he has undergone a religious conversion. He has joined those non-Christians who have been drawn to a master of messianic Christianity, a man whose appeal is based on faith that he will not do what he says, on hope that it will all work out for the best, and on charity for 40% of the American people.

John McCain's Maverickitis

Last week was a bad week for John McCain... and not just John McCain. The financial system was spinning out of control and McCain was attacking Bill Ayers.

It was the wrong message at the wrong time. The country was sizing up future leaders and McCain was carping.

Obama was proposing higher taxes, less free trade, more unions, and more litigation. Economists, CEOs, and investors seemed to know that these policies would be bad for the economy.

The problem was: even when McCain had interesting policies, he did not seem willing to step forward and defend them. So it looked like he had nothing to say.

As I said in my September 15 and 24 posts, among others, given the choice between the wrong policies and no policies, the nation will tend to go with something rather than nothing.

Today, McCain finally seems to have gotten the message. He proposed a series of policies that are starkly different from those of Obama, based as they are on stimulating economic growth rather than sharing the wealth.

McCain has a point: Obama's plan to reduce taxes is really welfare in disguise. McCain is offering economic growth and jobs, not a return to welfare.

In principle, it sounds like an argument McCain should relish. The problem is: it might well be too little, too late. It may be that McCain became too attached to his maverick persona, to the point that it drowned out his message.

Being a maverick is not the same as providing leadership. At the second debate McCain's proposal was: I am a maverick and I am going to shake up Washington.

In fact, things had already been very seriously shaken up. People are looking for stability and a calm temperament. At the second debate, Obama was more calm than McCain.

McCain's message has been: my persona is better than your persona, and my character is better than your character.

Surely, character counts; without it no one will be able to rely on a candidate's willingness to keep his word. And yet, neither maverick or character are policies, any more than hope and change are.

Maverick and character are assertions of self at a time when the country wants to know what politicians are going to do to restore the sinking economy. It was not a-- Hey, look at me!--moment.

Maverick is not a brand; it is not political high concept. It tells you nothing about what McCain might do as president. It merely suggests that he will be inconsistent and erratic.

By standard definition, a maverick is a stray, a loner, a lost soul, a motherless calf, someone who is not part of the herd or the group.

With a little positive spin you can make a maverick into a rebel or an independent spirit. Spin it as far as you wish and you will not make a maverick into a leader.

That is what the country saw when McCain decided to suspend his campaign and rush back to Washington to help broker a bailout deal between Congress and the White House.

You can say that it was a more responsible position than Obama's-- Call me if you need me-- approach. Unfortunately, it did not work.

McCain was claiming a leadership role. Unfortunately, he had not bothered to check on whether his troops were following him. They were not.

Obama seemed to know that no one would follow him, so he just kept quiet.

You would think that the first lesson they teach at leadership academy is: don't get too far out in front of your troops. If you do, you look like you are posturing, not leading. At worst you have made yourself an easy target.

Where a maverick can fashion his persona by separating himself from the group, a leader must bring the group together around a set of policy proposals. Today, McCain seems to have figured this out. The trouble is: it may be too little, too late.

The Mind of Cramer

You know James Cramer, the hedge fund operator who hyperventilated his way to television stardom, and who eventually became a contrary indicator.

In one of his more compelling rants, Cramer declared in April, 2007 that the heads of New York investment banks, Lloyd Blankfein, Stanley O'Neal, Richard Fuld, and Jimmy Cayne were worth every last million of their compensation packages.

Better yet, Cramer advised his minions to go out and get rich by buying shares in these great companies. He favored Goldman Sachs because that was where he had started his career. Of the CEOs he touted in 2007 Blankfein seems to be the one who really did earn his compensation.

The trouble is: if you had followed Cramer's advice, you would have bought GS at $230 a share. As of yesterday, you would have lost more than half your investment.

Perhaps that is why Cramer gave up running a hedge fund.

Now, New York Magazine has given Cramer a platform from which he can regale us with his prescience. This week he penned an essay predicting where the markets will be a year from now, in Fall, 2009. Link here.

His bold prediction: if McCain is president we will have a depression; if Obama is elected we will have a recession.

His thinking goes like this. We need to restore trust in the financial system. Without trust banks refuse to loan money, markets seize up, no one can get credit, and business activity comes to a halt.

Cramer understands that trust is very difficult to manufacture, more so when it has been trashed. His proposal: we should elect a president we can trust to manage the crisis. If everyone trusts the man at the top, then trust will be restored throughout the financial system.

In his words: "One of the central causes of the financial crisis is the now epidemic lack of trust in the financial system.... Having a president who can restore faith in the system as soon as possible is critical to restoring the credit freeze."

Cramer ignores the fact that the two people who are manging the crisis are Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke. Is there something about these two that does not inspire trust?

Anyway, Cramer offers that the Street largely prefers Obama to McCain, because he has a more subtle grasp of economic realities while McCain has been clumsy in his efforts to deal with the crisis.

While McCain stepped into the maelstrom, Obama's more subtle mind said: Call me if you need me.

Also, Cramer largely prefers Obama advisor Lawrence Summers to McCain adviser Carly Fiorina. While no sensible person would want to hand Treasury over to Carly Fiorina, Cramer seems to have forgotten that the banking deregulation bill that Democrats are blaming for the problem was crafted by Lawrence Summers and signed by Bill Clinton.

But, do we really have to wait a year to discover whether Cramer was right? Not at all. We cannot predict the future with certainty, but the market itself has provided us with a few signs, or, if you prefer, omens.

Isn't the market a discounting mechanism that projects the future. Who would you rather trust, the collective wisdom of Cramer's friends or the collective wisdom of the market?

Assume that the market cares about who becomes president. Cramer makes that presupposition, so I will accept it and test it.

We can test it by looking at market action in conjunction with presidential polls.

The Real Clear Politics average showed John McCain with a slim lead for the week of September 15. Over the weekend of September 20 and 21 the polls shifted and Obama took the lead. He has maintained it ever since.

So Monday September 22 would be the first day that the market could have offered an opinion about a future Obama presidency.

The last day that McCain led in the polls, September 19, the Dow closed at 11,388. On September 22 the market closed at 10,854. Not what I would call a rousing vote of confidence.

Yesterday, in the wake of a McCain debate performance that seemed to seal the deal for Obama, at a moment when Intrade was giving him a 75% chance of winning, the Dow closed at 9258.

Of course, there are many other factors that can impact markets. I would not bet the family fortune on this correlation.

I am merely following the logic of Cramer's argument. To take it a step further, we can conclude that Cramer should begin preparing himself for a new career as a political party hack.