Why Liberals Love a Bad Economy

Liberals are not only comfortable with the unending economic malaise under Obama; they positively welcome it because it helps them cement their control of society.

At the core of modern liberalism exists an amazing level of pride and a heartfelt belief that liberals know far more than the rest of us which, in their minds, entitles them to run Americans lives -- witness the HHS attack on religious liberty and Bloomberg's attack on 32-ounce sodas. These efforts put liberals in line with medieval royalty who believed they were intrinsically superior to the hoi polloi. This attitude of superiority creates a lust for power at any cost and rationalizes that lust by pretending it's for the good of those poor besotted fools who cling to their guns and religion.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are motivated by a desire to improve the lot of all Americans and to free Americans to be all they can be, not by a desire to determine how Americans live.

The difference can also be seen in the way conservatives and liberals look at political discourse. Many conservatives are bothered when Ann Coulter speaks in an acerbic way. Liberals on the other hand have no problem when Democrats lie about a "war on women" supposedly being waged by Republicans or when liberals compare conservatives to Nazis. Given that liberals think of themselves as superior people and their general lack of traditional religious beliefs -- there's nothing like a belief in God to induce humility -- it's hardly surprising that they can easily demonize their opponents and thereby justify any means to achieve success.

That's why liberals are perfectly comfortable with Obama's unending recession. While conservatives are appalled at the human cost of long-term high unemployment and the lack of opportunity for Americans, liberals view the country's economic distress as key to solidifying liberal control of society which, in their minds, is equivalent with the good of all. That control will ensure that enlightened liberals will be able to force all to conform to liberal "truth"-- no 32-ounce sodas for you.

In some ways, the situation in America is similar to that in the recent Egyptian election. Most Egyptians were trying to figure out what the best policy was for Egypt and as such, given the short time they had to ponder the matter, they were fragmented. The Muslim Brotherhood believing itself on a mission from god and having decades of experience at terrorism and ideological control, was able to approach the election as a unified bloc. The will to power is a stronger unifier than the will to do what's best for society.

The Great Depression was a seminal event in modern liberalism in that it taught them that when people are scared and think that their only hope is the government they will trade freedom for perceived security -- just as many in Egypt voted for the Muslim Brotherhood because they believed the Brotherhood would end corruption without imposing Sharia law.

Even though FDR's programs did nothing to turn the U.S. economy around, people kept voting for him because in their minds he essentially ensured their lives by having the government provide for them.

Of course, FDR's programs were nothing like those LBJ launched, but for the time they represented an extraordinary change in American society. Instead of depending on each other-- family and private charity-- Americans were told to depend on the government.

Liberals realize that with the country nearly evenly split on many issues, ensuring that a significant fraction of the electorate is dependent on the government, and hence likely to vote for whomever is for more government, is the key to electoral victories.

Conservatives wonder why areas suffering most from the Obama economy vote Democrat. The answer is that if you're out of a job and dependent on the government there is a strong incentive to vote for the politicians whom you believe are going to keep paying your bills -- which is why we won't see a Republic mayor in Detroit in the near future.

Conservatives also keep wondering why there is an apparent acceptance of the ongoing economic stagnation under Obama. The answer is that by using taxpayer money liberals have found a way to temporarily mitigate the economic pain caused by years of failed economic policies. So long as liberals can mitigate that pain, people will still believe in Democrat snake oil policies -- like raising tax rates in a recession -- and hence will keep voting for Santa... err, the Democrat party.

First, by providing a wide spectrum of government "assistance" ranging from food stamps to generous disability policies, liberals ensure that those who lack employment are not desperate enough to demand change but insecure enough to support more government.

Second, liberals control the media, so that people are constantly told that living off the government is a perfectly legitimate thing to do; no need to feel bad for mooching off your fellow Americans. Liberals do this so Americans won't feel guilty voting for someone who will steal money from others to give to those dependent on the government.

Third, liberals play on the compassion of America. Even hard-core conservatives are not eager to see their fellow citizens suffer. As a result, voters often feel guilty for voting against welfare programs, even when the higher tax rates translate into less economic freedom for workers.

Liberals welcome the bad economy because the one thing that will crush liberal dreams is an independent self-sufficient electorate. Free men and women who work and pay their own way are far less likely to vote in an overlord class that wishes to dictate even the minutia of day-to-day life.

By obscuring the issue, liberals can get the votes of those voters who don't mind being taxed to help those truly in need. That's why the unending liberal propaganda machine ensures that most Americans, and all low information voters, believe that everyone on the Federal dole is a hard-working guy or gal who's just going through a rough patch and is living in abject poverty while getting government aid.

Additionally, liberals work to ensure that the average voter has no idea how much of their hard-earned money goes to the government; that's why liberals like to tax businesses and "the rich" even though in the end it's the consumer who pays those taxes through higher prices.

The real liberal election strategy is simple. They can count on 30% of the country to vote liberal because those people share the dream of liberal hegemony. Another chunk of voters are conservative but are misinformed -- Obama is going to be bipartisan -- or are willing to sacrifice to help the poor. That gets them to a point where ensuring that even if only a small portion of Americans are dependent on the government -- keep in mind 13% of Americans get food stamps -- and hence likely to vote liberal, that will result in liberal election wins.

Liberals love economic problems because those problems empower them; they believe they should rule, so they don't worry about the consequences inflicted on the unemployed. That's why Obama has done nothing to reduce unemployment; as long as the government provides a cushy safety net for the unemployed and the employed don't how much they're being exploited liberals will keep winning elections. It's not all about the economy stupid -- it's all about the will to power of liberals.

You can read more of tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter 

Liberals are not only comfortable with the unending economic malaise under Obama; they positively welcome it because it helps them cement their control of society.

At the core of modern liberalism exists an amazing level of pride and a heartfelt belief that liberals know far more than the rest of us which, in their minds, entitles them to run Americans lives -- witness the HHS attack on religious liberty and Bloomberg's attack on 32-ounce sodas. These efforts put liberals in line with medieval royalty who believed they were intrinsically superior to the hoi polloi. This attitude of superiority creates a lust for power at any cost and rationalizes that lust by pretending it's for the good of those poor besotted fools who cling to their guns and religion.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are motivated by a desire to improve the lot of all Americans and to free Americans to be all they can be, not by a desire to determine how Americans live.

The difference can also be seen in the way conservatives and liberals look at political discourse. Many conservatives are bothered when Ann Coulter speaks in an acerbic way. Liberals on the other hand have no problem when Democrats lie about a "war on women" supposedly being waged by Republicans or when liberals compare conservatives to Nazis. Given that liberals think of themselves as superior people and their general lack of traditional religious beliefs -- there's nothing like a belief in God to induce humility -- it's hardly surprising that they can easily demonize their opponents and thereby justify any means to achieve success.

That's why liberals are perfectly comfortable with Obama's unending recession. While conservatives are appalled at the human cost of long-term high unemployment and the lack of opportunity for Americans, liberals view the country's economic distress as key to solidifying liberal control of society which, in their minds, is equivalent with the good of all. That control will ensure that enlightened liberals will be able to force all to conform to liberal "truth"-- no 32-ounce sodas for you.

In some ways, the situation in America is similar to that in the recent Egyptian election. Most Egyptians were trying to figure out what the best policy was for Egypt and as such, given the short time they had to ponder the matter, they were fragmented. The Muslim Brotherhood believing itself on a mission from god and having decades of experience at terrorism and ideological control, was able to approach the election as a unified bloc. The will to power is a stronger unifier than the will to do what's best for society.

The Great Depression was a seminal event in modern liberalism in that it taught them that when people are scared and think that their only hope is the government they will trade freedom for perceived security -- just as many in Egypt voted for the Muslim Brotherhood because they believed the Brotherhood would end corruption without imposing Sharia law.

Even though FDR's programs did nothing to turn the U.S. economy around, people kept voting for him because in their minds he essentially ensured their lives by having the government provide for them.

Of course, FDR's programs were nothing like those LBJ launched, but for the time they represented an extraordinary change in American society. Instead of depending on each other-- family and private charity-- Americans were told to depend on the government.

Liberals realize that with the country nearly evenly split on many issues, ensuring that a significant fraction of the electorate is dependent on the government, and hence likely to vote for whomever is for more government, is the key to electoral victories.

Conservatives wonder why areas suffering most from the Obama economy vote Democrat. The answer is that if you're out of a job and dependent on the government there is a strong incentive to vote for the politicians whom you believe are going to keep paying your bills -- which is why we won't see a Republic mayor in Detroit in the near future.

Conservatives also keep wondering why there is an apparent acceptance of the ongoing economic stagnation under Obama. The answer is that by using taxpayer money liberals have found a way to temporarily mitigate the economic pain caused by years of failed economic policies. So long as liberals can mitigate that pain, people will still believe in Democrat snake oil policies -- like raising tax rates in a recession -- and hence will keep voting for Santa... err, the Democrat party.

First, by providing a wide spectrum of government "assistance" ranging from food stamps to generous disability policies, liberals ensure that those who lack employment are not desperate enough to demand change but insecure enough to support more government.

Second, liberals control the media, so that people are constantly told that living off the government is a perfectly legitimate thing to do; no need to feel bad for mooching off your fellow Americans. Liberals do this so Americans won't feel guilty voting for someone who will steal money from others to give to those dependent on the government.

Third, liberals play on the compassion of America. Even hard-core conservatives are not eager to see their fellow citizens suffer. As a result, voters often feel guilty for voting against welfare programs, even when the higher tax rates translate into less economic freedom for workers.

Liberals welcome the bad economy because the one thing that will crush liberal dreams is an independent self-sufficient electorate. Free men and women who work and pay their own way are far less likely to vote in an overlord class that wishes to dictate even the minutia of day-to-day life.

By obscuring the issue, liberals can get the votes of those voters who don't mind being taxed to help those truly in need. That's why the unending liberal propaganda machine ensures that most Americans, and all low information voters, believe that everyone on the Federal dole is a hard-working guy or gal who's just going through a rough patch and is living in abject poverty while getting government aid.

Additionally, liberals work to ensure that the average voter has no idea how much of their hard-earned money goes to the government; that's why liberals like to tax businesses and "the rich" even though in the end it's the consumer who pays those taxes through higher prices.

The real liberal election strategy is simple. They can count on 30% of the country to vote liberal because those people share the dream of liberal hegemony. Another chunk of voters are conservative but are misinformed -- Obama is going to be bipartisan -- or are willing to sacrifice to help the poor. That gets them to a point where ensuring that even if only a small portion of Americans are dependent on the government -- keep in mind 13% of Americans get food stamps -- and hence likely to vote liberal, that will result in liberal election wins.

Liberals love economic problems because those problems empower them; they believe they should rule, so they don't worry about the consequences inflicted on the unemployed. That's why Obama has done nothing to reduce unemployment; as long as the government provides a cushy safety net for the unemployed and the employed don't how much they're being exploited liberals will keep winning elections. It's not all about the economy stupid -- it's all about the will to power of liberals.

You can read more of tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter