Marketing The Left

For the first time in US history an extremist group has control of the executive branch.

How can we distill this experience, secure an anchor through the noise and bullets? What then has it meant or may it mean for each of us individually, or for all of us, collectively, for our fortunes, for our children, for our security?

We think there is such an anchor. It is this - those at the helm have set out to effect a great leveling - domestically in the dilution of a meritocracy, internationally through the chiseling away at American leadership.

This is the common denominator. Are we not all impacted, or potentially impacted by this programming? We highlight examples below that demonstrate that we are. (We could just as easily highlight BO’s intentional leveling off shore - his appeasement of Syria, slap at Lebanon; his humiliating effort to appease Iran and coddle Russia while insulting Israel and ignoring our great allies in E Europe, all of which have corroded US security.)

We have examined in past blogs the now well known statist emblem in fashion with the majority. In terms most pedestrian it is this - the more government control the better. But are we at the core issue, or merely surface feeding? Is there something freighted with more horsepower, something which will give timbre and profundity to the thing? We think there is: The left cannot accept the variance of fortune which goes with free markets. They look to effect on all of us a sameness. Why? Because it sells, or did.

For example, the other day at the nursery the conversation was tagged to high Wall St salaries. "That outa be a crime," came the shout from a woman at the counter. That outburst may reflect envy, it may reflect the admission of a poor career decision but it most certainly does not reflect economic literacy. As Tom Sowell notes, "The rest of the country is not poorer by the amount of Bill Gates' fortune today and was not poorer by the amount of John D. Rockefeller's fortune a century ago. The fortunes that the sellers amassed were not a deduction from the buyers' wealth. Buyers and sellers both gained from these transactions or the transactions wouldn't have continued." Most of us understand this yet to the left it calls for a leveling. Why? Because it sells.

Or, consider Obama’s recent statement that, "... at some point, you have made enough money." There is obviously a moral bankruptcy to BO’s notion that others can decide what is good for you. Most normal people understand this but we are more interested in the core issue - the base instinct of the left to level society; it could be by the way of education; in this case, it is by the way of income (unless of course it is their income).

Another example is the health-care plan. There are those in our society who are self-insured, who are prudent and thrifty and have put away $ for medical emergencies. They don’t need insurance. They stand out as role models. And, they will be punished because of it, tamped to the level of their less prudent neighbors. These Americans must pay a yearly penalty of $695 per individual, or up to 2.5% of their income if they cannot show they have bought a gov’t insured plan; the family penalty is $347/child up to $2250 per family. Pay or go to jail.

A meritocracy is an anathema to the left. This is a true thing. There are always enough folk like the woman at the nursery who seek shelter, a soft vengeance against achievers; always enough who demand the easy way; it is these upon whom the left depends for its sustenance, it is these from whom operatives of the left extract their nourishment.

A land of only Trumans and Reagans and Teddy’s would mean an end to that malignancy which we know to be today’s Democratic party.

Robert Craven