When I wrote my first post on liberalism as more of a social phenomenon than an intellectual one, I imagined a series of posts dealing with many different implications of that idea.  So far I’ve written three other posts in the series on topics ranging from slogans to leftist intolerance and political changers to the so-called “wealth gap.”

One big topic that I haven’t explored yet–even though I’ve meant to do so since the start of the series–is the way in which liberal ideas are perpetuated on social media and elsewhere through the use of simple-minded memes.  As I considered the idea of social liberalism, one point which came to mind is that so many liberal memes might seem catchy at first glance,  but they are either responses to outlandish straw men, or they make no sense whatsoever when subjected to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

At Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson has written a few posts about the role of the leftist site Upworthy in promulgating memes of both sorts, including a post this past Tuesday on the high cost of low-information voters.  And he’s not the only one to recognize the importance of simple-minded memes for the left.  For example, this post at Breitbart.com takes the idea one step further to reflect on the significance of LOLcats in politics.

What interests me at the moment, though, is that there is a whole class of liberal memes which go beyond the simple-minded to the downright pernicious: they promulgate leftist thinking in a way that seems ironic or clever or humorous, even as they blatantly acknowledge the darker goals of leftist ideology.   I stumbled across a prime example of one such meme on Facebook about two months ago when an acquaintance “shared” a meme which had been promoted by the Facebook group “Being Liberal” back in December 2011.  I’ve pasted the image below.

We’re all familiar with the common liberal tropes about “beating swords into plowshares” and the frequent lament heard on the left that “if we spent on education or social programs what we spent on the military” somehow all of society’s ills would disappear.   This meme takes that same tack, but uses “irony” to take it one step further by suggesting that the government can use the military to “win the hearts and minds of the population” and put the “locals to work” working on infrastructure politics.

By supposedly employing “irony” to make its point, therefore, it moves from the simple-minded lament about spending more on education and social programs into the territory of the pernicious by endorsing the use of the military as a means of social control.  The person who posts or re-posts the idea can feign ignorance of the pernicious implications by saying that the meme isn’t “serious” or that it is “just making a point through irony,” but it’s a point which betrays the left’s ignorance of the way free people and free markets operate.  The point of the meme is unmistakable:  all good comes through government, and we ought to use the force of government to establish a planned economy.

The Facebook page for “Being Liberal” attributes this meme to one of its readers named Terry Sebolt who wrote in and said (with the disingenuousness common on the left): “”Those were my words, but not my pic. Feel free to put it anywhere you want. I meant every word of it, and hope people enjoy the irony, regardless of credit. It was a throw away line…”

The claim may be spurious, though, as I did some internet searching and the earliest example I could find for the meme online was this appearance on Twitter from August 9, 2011.  I’ve posted a screenshot of the image below.

Regardless of the authorship, though, the claim is intended to make a point by shocking, even though those who quote the statement will try to distance themselves from its actual implications.  Those implications, though, tell us a great amount about the worldview of the left.

What’s even more amazing in the case of the person I know who re-posted this meme is that she is an immigrant from eastern Europe with a PhD in a scientific field from an American university.   She often refers to the bad days growing up in her country under a brutal dictator when everyone was suffering.  And so she moves to the U.S. and spends time in universities and decides that she’s a “liberal” and approvingly re-posts that “ironic” image.  If that’s not an example of a socially-promulgated disorder, then I’m not sure what would be.

Most of you will get the likely reason in one guess:

Yes, it’s “Jon Corzine” (don’t say Democrat! don’t say Democrat!!! it won’t matter, if nobody ever points it out!!!1!), formerly of Goldman-Sachs and MF Global.

At this time, the 767-word news article that I’ve linked to never gets around to mentioning that “Jon Corzine” is a top Democrat. It lists his political involvement simply as “former New Jersey governor”, omitting not only his party, but also his powerful roles as a Democrat Senator and as one of Obama’s very top fund-raisers and (formerly) advisors.

At this time, the article’s photo caption has even (wrongly) put an “(R)” after Corzine’s name. The caption reads:

Reuters/Reuters – Former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine (R) receives help with his notes from his legal counsel as he testifies before a House Financial Services Committee Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee…

Bias, anyone?

From The Comments: John points out that the (R) would of course be defended as the photographic “right”. But even allowing that, Corzine is not the guy on the right; he’s the guy in the center (of three people in a rapidly-receding perspective). The point is that somebody at Reuters is fine with allowing people to think that Corzine is something other than a top Democrat.

When I put up my first post on social liberalism several weeks ago, I envisioned a series of posts that would discuss many of the implications of the fact that modern liberalism is more a social phenomenon than an intellectual one.  I’ve done that in part, but have until now neglected to mention one of the largest implications of all, namely that most modern liberals make easy targets for propagandists of all stripes because their political identity is driven more by their feelings than by the facts, and so they rarely exert critical judgement over the memes and narratives of the moment.

Quite to the contrary:  to exert critical judgement is automatically to invite suspicion, because it means asking difficult questions, seeking facts, pointing out fallacies, noting inconsistencies, all of which make modern liberals profoundly uncomfortable because those sorts of activities advertise the questioner’s willingness to dissent from the orthodoxy.

Neo-Neocon wrote a great post many years ago where she quoted Milan Kundera’s Book of Laughter and Forgetting on the power of “Circle Dancing”:

Circle dancing is magic. It speaks to us through the millennia from the depths of human memory. Madame Raphael had cut the picture out of the magazine and would stare at it and dream. She too longed to dance in a ring. All her life she had looked for a group of people she could hold hands with and dance with in a ring. First she looked for them in the Methodist Church (her father was a religious fanatic), then in the Communist Party, then among the Trotskyites, then in the anti-abortion movement (A child has a right to life!), then in the pro-abortion movement (A woman has a right to her body!); she looked for them among the Marxists, the psychoanalysts, and the structuralists; she looked for them in Lenin, Zen Buddhism, Mao Tse-tung, yogis, the nouveau roman, Brechtian theater, the theater of panic; and finally she hoped she could at least become one with her students, which meant she always forced them to think and say exactly what she thought and said, and together they formed a single body and a single soul, a single ring and a single dance.

To question is to step outside the  circle, to resist the lure of the dance.  And so the memes and narratives proliferate, pushed on by those who “feel moved” by them and are too afraid to question them.

Among the many liberals I know, this week’s meme is a viral video about “the wealth gap.”  I first noticed a college acquaintance (and an enthusiastic Elizabeth Warren supporter) mention it on Facebook on Sunday, and have noticed at least three other references to it by others since then.  The video is only 6 minutes and 24 seconds long, but if you’re like me, after about three minutes, it will seem like it is going on forever.

I’ve recorded some of my thoughts below the fold.

(more…)

A few weeks ago, a reader at Instapundit found an interesting passage in the archives which Glenn Reynolds had first quoted in February 2002.  I made note of the passage because it seemed to fit so well with both the social liberalism theme and also with the distinction (increasingly hard to recognize in the age of Obama, I admit) between liberals and leftists to which I made reference in my last post.

The passage is from an article by Judith Lewis entitled “Why I’m Not a Protestor” that appeared in the LA Weekly on Jan. 30, 2002:

And whatever these perfect strangers from Kentucky stood for, however distant they were from the causes of global minimum wage, clean energy and sustainable peace, they were still able to treat people who shared almost none of their values without contempt. We were able to do the same, and to us, that was a hugely political act.

But it is the kind of political act for which the current crop of activist groups — from the Voters Rights March to Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center — have increasingly little patience. Faced with dissenting views or even devil’s advocacy from newspaper reporters, they grow hostile and deny access. When I’ve collaborated with activists on the left, as I did recently on a Web site, I’ve found them willing to censor discussions or use ridicule when certain words make them uncomfortable. When I’ve written about them, they’ve been unhappy that I’ve focused on their personal struggles and not exclusively on the issues, and as a member of the media, I’ve endured their suspicion and scorn. Were these people ever to actually run the country, I complained loudly in the summer of 2000, while I was up in Malibu covering the Ruckus Society’s direct-action training camp, it would be a bona fide fascist dictatorship.

Although the LA Weekly article ends by reiterating the writer’s allegiance to leftist goals and ideals, she intends it as a warning to her fellow liberals and leftists that they need to learn to work and play well with others.  Despite her moment of clarity, she is unable to recognize that the leftist activist class is extreme and intolerant because leftist philosophies inevitably end up there.

The passage came to mind again when I saw this recent interview with Juan Williams at the Daily Caller.  In the interview, Williams talks about what he learned from his firing by NPR:  the liberal media will “shut you down, stab you, kill you, fire you” if you disagree, he tells Ginni Thomas.

Both examples remind me of the many political change stories that Neoneocon has collected and written about over the years.  Although neither Judith Lewis (in the LA Weekly article) nor Juan Williams have abandoned their belief in leftist ideas, both have experienced a key element of leftism that has inspired many others to look more closely at conservative ideas and conservative thinkers.

In other words, the ingrained tendency of the left to go too far often unsettles the willingness of individuals to continue to believe in the narrative of a beneficent and well-intentioned politics–a belief which, however unfounded, is one of the hallmarks of social liberalism.   At least that has been my experience.

What have our readers observed?  Were any of you political changers?  Was there something about the anger, intolerance, and extremism of the leftist activist class that inspired you to question your views or, alternately, that made you more resolute in your conservative beliefs?

It never ceases to amaze me that so many liberals fail to grasp the reality of the law of unintended consequences with respect to any piece of supposedly well-intentioned legislation.  I use the word “liberals” here rather than “leftists” because I mean to refer not to the hard-core, doctrinaire leftists, but to the garden variety liberals who continually get fooled by the left into supporting their ill-intentioned schemes.

The difference between a basic liberal and a hard-core leftist is nicely illustrated by the anecdote that opens this article about the left’s scheme to undermine American power in the world and the American way of life.  Daren Jonescu describes an acquaintance of his, a teacher, and a liberal, who was surprised to learn that the Communist Party of the U.S.A. had endorsed Obama:

When I explained that the Party’s official endorsement cited Obama’s signature policy initiatives as the surest means to achieving socialism in America, and that CPUSA leaders were actively campaigning for Obama in swing states, my colleague fell silent for a moment, and then said, matter-of-factly, “It doesn’t really bother me; I guess it might bother me if Obama were endorsing the Communist Party, but if they’re endorsing him, it doesn’t matter.”

In typical fashion, the liberal here manages to convince himself that what should be obvious is really inconsequential.

But I digress.  While it seems clear to me that the left’s aim in pursuing gun-control is to disarm the populace, liberals always buy into it because they believe the lie that gun-control will somehow reduce “gun-violence,” even though lawbreakers will always find ways to acquire guns.

In the current environment, for example, all the gun-control talk has created a run on guns, ammunition, and the magazines that the politicians are talking about outlawing.  And the liberals are flummoxed and upset about all of the guns being sold these days.  It’s a classic case of failing to understand the law of unintended consequences whenever gun-control becomes a fixation of the politicians and their agents in the media.

Of course, that is only just the beginning.  Opponents of more gun-control are always quick to point out that as the measures fail to achieve their aims, the calls for more restrictions and more confiscatory legislation will only escalate.  Conservatives recognize this, and leftists know that is their ultimate aim.  But liberals always delude themselves into perpetuating the lies of the left.

Every so often, though, they get a clue that the problem might not be as easily fixed as proponents of immediate legislative fixes would have them believe.  Consider, for instance, the title of this recent Washington Post article: “Weapons made with 3-D printers could test gun-control efforts.”

To follow the implications of that story to its logical conclusions is to recognize that one unsuccessful gun-control bill is but the first step down a slippery slope that can lead to more and more government intervention into every aspect of our lives, yet “liberals” still manage to remain in denial about that reality.

The word ‘austerity’ has been kicking around in political life, these last few years. It conjures images of Greek old people forced to eat cat food as their country’s economy collapses and to burn furniture for heat, because right-wing budget-balancing Nazis have forced cruel cuts to social spending.

I exaggerate, but not much; see this Greek depiction of Germany’s Merkel. Leaving aside the fact the Nazis were socialists who believed in Keynesian deficit-spending on public works and social benefits (much like our Democrat friends believe), the word ‘austerity’ – specifically, the image of cruel spending cuts – is largely a myth, that left-wingers deploy to narrow the range of acceptable thought.

“Look at Europe!”, cry advocates of Big Government and deficit spending, “They’ve tried austerity and it doesn’t work!” And what they mean is: don’t you dare think about government spending cuts.

If you corner them, they may acknowledge that tax hikes also count as ‘austerity’ policies. But they are usually fine with tax hikes; they love tax hikes. So when they hurl ‘austerity’ as a pejorative, they mean, DON’T CUT SPENDING.

But let’s step back a minute. Have European countries actually cut their spending? And if they are suffering, might other factors – another policy, perhaps – explain the suffering? These questions are worth examining. (more…)

From Newsday:

President Barack Obama demanded Monday that lawmakers raise the nation’s $16.4 trillion federal debt limit quickly, warning that “Social Security benefits and veterans’ checks will be delayed” if they don’t and cautioning Republicans not to insist on cuts to government spending in exchange.

“They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the economy,” he said at the 21st and final news conference of his first term. “The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they better decide quickly because time is running short.”

[...]
“We are not a deadbeat nation,” he declared…

Orwellian language – speaking as though the opposite of the situation is somehow the situation – is a hallmark of the Obama presidency, and the statement reported above is typical. So many things wrong with it, it’s tough to know where to start.

First, who is holding hostages and demanding ransoms? Obama is. (more…)

Good evening from GayPatriot Central Command.  I just had another successful show at BlogTalkRadio — no technical issues this time!  Sorry I didn’t have time for advance warning on the blog.  This is why you need to follow me on Twitterrrrrrrrr!  (@GayPatriot).

My guest tonight is conservative writer and all-around awesome guy, Kurt Schlichter.  It was a fantastic show and we both got each other fired up about how stupid liberals are.

Here’s your chance to listen!   GayPatriot’s America is also available on iTunes — just search for it and you’ll find it.

PS – Next show will be Wednesday night, October 10 at 9PM Eastern.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

This morning I became aware of a lie being spread on left-wing blog sites that the Romney campaign and conservative groups had already given up on Michigan and Pennsylvania.

The Romney campaign and conservative groups like Crossroads GPS have pulled TV ads in Michigan, Romney’s home state, according to the Detroit News.

Nor are the campaign and super PACs running advertising in Pennsylvania, after unleashing a barrage there over the past five months.

This is a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that Romney is widening the playing field in the Electoral College. Obama needs it to shrink.

Sources directly from the Romney campaign have provided me with this response:

“Silly season. Not pulling out from anywhere – we haven’t yet begun. Until now. Tomorrow we’re launching the biggest swing state ad blitz of the campaign. Massive. What people may notice is that this flight doesn’t yet include important states like PA, Wisc or MI. Just means we’re hitting battlegrounds first. “

We are going to see a lot of this nonsense coming from the Left. They know they are going to lose and they are desperate.

Oh, and this: Obama only leading in New Jersey by SEVEN?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I’ve arrived in Tampa and am now blogging from an awesome panel featuring some of the most powerful women in the Conservative movement.

This panel features Townhall.com editor and author Katie Pavlich, US Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, US Rep. Renee Ellmers and Breitbart Editor Dana Loesch.

The format is interesting… clips demeaning Republican women are shown (many are from Bill Maher, shockingly…). Then the panelists respond to the clips and the overall insulting way the media treats Conservative women.

It is a great panel to start the convention for me. All of these women are smart and accomplished and many have had to overcome great professional and professional odds.

Kudos to the organizers of this panel. It is an important topic and very empowering to hear our strong Conservative women stand up for their values and our nation.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The online left rallied this month around a 12-year-old Illinois girl, Abby Goldberg, who launched a petition that her state outlaw plastic bags. As of writing, the petition at Change.org had notched 158,750 signers.

The petition became an internet phenomenon primarily for the organizer’s youth. But a recent interview with the young girl revealed she was largely uninvolved in the process, instead an environmental activist wrote and floated it while she was out of the country.

A partial transcript of a recent interview:

Reporter: And from there you just kind of took this on and it took on a life of its own. There are other petitions out there with sort of the same focus or the same issue. But yet yours has received 150,000 signatures. What’s set you apart from some of the other ones?

Goldberg: Well a friend at my school got me in contact with another activist named Ben Zolno. He was the creator of Plastic Bag State of Mind. His idea was to start this petition, and I was in Israel for two weeks so the whole thing got started while I was on vacation.

Reporter: Ok and it’s my understanding that you get pretty fired up about this whole thing. And in fact in your petition you use some pretty tough words for folks out there. Tell me about that.

Goldberg: Well, not all of them were exactly my words. I mean, I wrote them, but Ben edited them and he changed it and I agreed to it, too.

Zolno, a Huffington Post environmental blogger, has previously written that plastic bags–100 percent recyclable, and the product of an industry that employs north of 30,000 nationwide–would “damn … children and their planet for eternity.”

He recorded an anti-bag parody rap video last year, but the activist has apparently graduated to political theater once reserved by Senate Democratic leaders: using children as human props.

Unbelieveable!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Dan Savage was at it again today… he just can’t accept individual thought. If you aren’t a left-wing gay radical, you are a faggot.

Well, Mr. Savage… let’s review the record and remind folks who the true bully is.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): Do wonder if HRC will call Mr. Savage on the carpet for his use of the term “faggot.” They faulted Sarah Palin when her daughter used the term.

I just noticed this quote from Savage’s wild-eyed bullying tirade…

“There is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone women to death on their wedding nights if they’re not virgins — at least not yet,” Savage said. “We don’t know where the GOP is going these days.”

“People are dying because people can’t clear this one last hurdle,” he said. “They can’t get past this one last thing in the Bible — about homosexuality.

If I didn’t know better, I would think he was criticizing Islamic governments around the world that routinely stone women & hang gays NOW. I don’t recall an American government official doing anything of the sort in at least 50 years. And back then, it would have most likely been a Democrat.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sobering, yet important video to wake you up from your Monday morning stupor….

(background on video at this link)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Via The Hill:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) will announce Monday that he is not seeking re-election, ending a 32-year career in the House.

Frank, 71, is the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee and the architect, with former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), of the sweeping Wall Street regulatory reform law enacted in 2010.

He is scheduled to hold a press conference at 1 p.m. in his district, according to a spokesman, who said the congressman would announce at that time the reason for his decision, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) will announce Monday that he is not seeking re-election, ending a 32-year career in the House.

Frank, 71, is the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee and the architect, with former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), of the sweeping Wall Street regulatory reform law enacted in 2010.

He is scheduled to hold a press conference at 1 p.m. in his district, according to a spokesman, who said the congressman would announce at that time the reason for his decision.

Hopefully his next stop will be prison for the economic crimes he has committed against the United States of America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)