Trotsky's Parting Gift to The World

 By Hugh Farnham

While racism has been with us since the dawn of humanity, it was one special individual who gave us the modern term Racist:  Leon Trotsky.  A word-weapon meant to silence those who stood in the way of international Communism.

True to form, today's progressives have held fast to Trotsky's original use.  Let's see how he cast this word in referring to conservative Slavs: 

"Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: "In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them." This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the 'racists.'" 

 - "The History of the Russian Revolution"

Trotsky believed those traditional Slavs who held to traditional Christian values were insular and not compatible with his vision of the Communist International.   They were racist in his view.

Let's translate that into today's progressive-speak:

"Conservatism, the clinging to the Bible, Constitution, and guns, is based on the erroneous assumption that Americans are exceptional; freedom and individual choice are somehow greater than a centrally planned economy; a group who falsely believes 'they actually built that themselves'.  Racists."

Any doubt Obama would heartily agree with the above passage?  Be able to expound upon it ad nauseam without a teleprompter, straight from the heart?  

Progressives have added to this word to make it more powerful.  They built upon the hate of traditionalists and added a supposed element of racial hatred in all Conservatives.  

Truth be told, Progressives project their true nature on their enemies.  In 20 years, one can imagine Common Core teaching that Republicans kept slaves on their Northern plantations in Illinois, Democrats freed the slaves and integrated the military, evil Republicans tried to stop the Civil Rights Act, all led by a Republican senator from West Virginia who just happened to be a grand wizard in the KKK.

The next time I hear the usual suspects in the media try to shut down a voice of Conservatism with "racist", I'm going to think of the founder of that word:

  Sources:  The Unpopular Truth, The Immanent Domain

The Left - Right Libertarian Link

When arguing with liberals such as a Truth 101, or a Jerry Critter or even a Jersey McJones, I become frustrated because I see that underneath the arguments, we share some fundamental goals, like a prosperous and free America.  It is the means we disagree on.

Roderick Long is a left-libertarian and he laments, as I do, our failure to bring those from the left into the libertarian fold.


His article, How to Reach the Left, is a masterpiece. It gives great insight into just what left-libertarianism looks like.  It is far from the loony left that haunts the Democrat party.  He disdains that crowd as the "Aristocratic Left," and is quite hostile to it...

These are left-wingers who have a particular vision of an idyllic society and are prepared to hammer into place anyone whose preferences or behavior don't align with the vision; in effect they see other people as their property.

More importantly, I think he has staked out some libertarian common ground where liberty lovers on the left and right could unite, if each group could drop some preconceived notions.

His argument rests upon the premise that we do not have a truly free market, and I agree with him on that...

Consider, for example, the recent debate in the United States over healthcare, in which the choice between our prevailing corporatist system of healthcare and a somewhat more socialistic one was presented as a choice between a free market and socialism — so that opponents of prevailing corporatism were tricked into supporting socialism as the antidote, and opponents of socialism were tricked into supporting the prevailing corporatism as the antidote.

it is true that free markets penalize irrational business decisions; but it will be difficult to convince people of this if [...] they continue to labor under the conflationist delusion that current economic conditions are a reasonable approximation to a free market. 

How do you like your tyranny?  Democrat or Republican?

Long’s thesis identifies the source of our contention:  The left's attempts to protect people from the tyranny of big business ends up making us slaves of the state.  The right thinks it is arguing for free markets, but the result is corporate fascism.  False freedom for the people, a gilded cage (to protect them from predators) for businessmen and bankers

Here's an Example:

So when conservative lawmakers strip away regulations on risky loans without repealing deposit insurance, what they are "deregulating" is not a purely private business, but rather a business that enjoys government-granted privileges — which is not the sort of deregulation that libertarians favor.

Libertarians favor taking away the government-granted privileges as well.  Doing otherwise creates a moral hazard.

The Problem of Corporations

I see some problems with big corporations, and I share some of the left’s unease with them.  Here is a left-libertarian critique of the corporation in a nutshell:

The problem with the corporate form is that it grants to private business a distinctive governmental feature — legal personhood, and the accompanying privilege of limited liability — without the correlative burden of democratic accountability; granting such a status, van Eeghen argues, constitutes an un-libertarian surrender of individual responsibility, and confers the benefits of ownership without its corresponding costs, thus enabling corporations to concentrate power and externalize risk in ways to which libertarians should object. (Mises Daily)

Piet-Hein van Eeghen readily acknowledges the benefits of corporations, but his critique makes sense.  For the pro-corporation argument, see  In Defense of the Corporation - Stephan Kinsella

Mo Bigger Government is Not the Answer

The answer to corporate behemoths can’t be to make government even bigger.  Too often government becomes the teammate of corporations instead of being the referee.  This spurs corporations to ever greater heights of irresponsibility, thanks to the government-provided safety net.

We need look no further than wall street, where whizz kids wrecked our economy and nobody went to jail because nobody broke any laws. Financial chieftains can crash an investment firm and destroy billions in wealth, paying no price whatsoever.  If that is not an invitation to irresponsibility, I don't know what is.

Making corporate heads, board members and officers financially liable for the actions of the corporation would go a long way towards snuffing the wild speculation and reckless gambling that continues to endanger our nation.  Knowing you will have to eat your losses engenders prudence.

Can left and right agree that exposing the big behemoths and the pseudo-capitalists to the vagaries of the free marketplace would be a good starting point?

Government Statistics Made Easy!

Another day, another liberal blogger making outrageous charges in a feeble attempt to score cheap political points...


 If you're interested in learning how to quickly (less than 5 minutes!) get to the bottom of government facts and figures, follow along with me. Learning how to do this is invaluable, especially when combating wild slurs from the left.

Unhinged Liberal:
"The biggest lie, which has put the Federal and State governments in the RED, is the lie that cutting taxes will spur growth and bring in more money to pay the bills.

We have had 30 years of experience with this promise, and the facts prove that theory to be false."

Of course, he's wrong.  You can go here and run the numbers yourself.  It is not a government site, but it uses publicly available government statistics from GPO Access.

Contrary to the unhinged liberal's claim, the data show that revenue did increase after the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush II tax cuts. The chart to the left is for the Reagan years and it shows the growth in constant 2005 dollars.  You can punch in the 2000-2010 timespan and you'll see continued revenue increases after the Bush tax cut as well.




The data plainly show that revenue increased after each tax cut, and GDP also kept climbing. So clearly, the culprit in all of this is the spending.

Unfortunately, government spending grew at an even greater rate than the revenue increase, resulting in the growth of the national debt.

Look at the chart during the Reagan 80's, and you'll see why liberals (and libertarians,and fiscal conservatives) criticize Reagan and the Democratic House.  They increased spending even more than revenue increased, adding to the public debt.  Clinton and a Republican congress eventually flatlined it around 1997, and even started it downward.  Bush II ramped it up even more, and Obama is on course to set new spending records.

A False Nexus
This is where the mischief comes in.  Liberals scream and point to the debt chart, ignoring the first chart showing the increase in revenue.  To them, this "proves" that tax cuts cause debt.  They have to leave out the fact that revenue increased and the economy grew in order to "prove" this.  That tax cuts caused the debt is patently and provably false.  Too much spending is what exploded the debt.

An Easy to Use Tool to Analyze Government Data

I highly recommend Christopher Chantrill's Government Spending site.   Look on the left sidebar and you will find links to the sister sites, US Government Debt, and US Government Revenue. 

You can use the interactive charts to zoom in on areas of interest.  All of his charts are powered by US Government data accessed at GPOAccess.Gov.  You can also download all the data yourself for your own analysis from that same site.

Chantrill's site makes this very easy to do.  If you click the little "Here" link below the charts, you can build your own interactive line chart that displays the data from year to year.  % of GDP is a good choice to display for government spending, since it shows you how big of a slice the federal government takes out of the economy.  I also like the "$ billion 2005" setting, which displays all data in constant 2005 numbers.  This is important since the dollar's value is constantly eroding and it allows us to compare the 1930's with the 1980's by basing all numbers in constant dollars.

Avoid Petty Partisan Spats and Focus on the Stats
I bring all of this to you because I am tired of arguing with people who just want to tear down republicans or score some cheap political point.  Engaging in these kinds of arguments is a descent into madness.  Stick to the facts, and you can at least make some headway towards understanding, if not for the lib you are arguing with, then at least for yourself.