Who’s the sucker?

Avedon Carol of The Sideshow directs readers to Joe Vecchio for an explanation of libertarianism. Would she link to Ken Mehlman for an explanation of liberalism? Joe writes, “What we’re witnessing now in this country is a shadow of what went on before the New Deal: in the days before there were child labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc. Did you think liberalism was created out of a vacuum? It was a direct result of the failures of the unregulated market: the reason government had to step in in 1932 is because a few people got together to rig the system for their own benefit, and now that liberalism has been publicly humiliated we’re seeing it happen all over again.”

The gist of what Joe is saying is that social liberalism arose to protect the working class from the menacing onslaught of the wealthy. He doesn’t say how negotiating a contract between a disenfranchised white labour pool and the gov’t’s business cronies furthered individual rights. How can liberalism ever be rescued from its “humiliation” when its origins are denied, hijacked by indentured servants of a cruel master they legitimise over and again in those curious aberrations referred to as elections, thereby ensuring the social misery they purport to relieve?

Vecchio continues, “All this is falling on deaf ears, of course. Knowing nothing about history, and less about the true nature of humans (or perhaps understanding it all too well), the Libertarians will never understand how wrong they are. They’re being played for suckers by people who are looking to make a profit at their expense.”

Here’s a little history lesson liberals like Joe never mention:

Katznelson concludes that most government social policies during the 1930s and 1940s were, in effect, part of a vast affirmative action program for whites that left blacks further behind than they had been at the beginning of the period. He makes a chilling case.

Who’s the sucker?

You don’t say

p42:

“Many Americans appear to believe that our constitution has been a model for the rest of the democratic world.’ Yet among the countries most comparable to the United States and where democratic institutions have long existed without breakdown, not one has adopted our American constitutional system. It would be fair to say that without a single exception they have all rejected it.”

How Democratic is the American Constitution
by Robert A. Dahl
Yale University Press, 2003, paper

Many people support the idea

Sunday 04 January 2004

A member of the Likud party has proposed “massive ethnic cleansing” of non-Jews in Palestine-Israel as a “final solution” of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Uzi Cohen, a member of Ariel Sharon’s right-wing party and a deputy mayor of the town of Raanana, told Israeli public radio on Sunday there was widespread support in Israel for “the idea of ethnic cleansing”.

“Many people support the idea but few are willing to speak about it publicly,” he said.

[…]

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has so far been circumspect about the idea of banishing the Palestinians from their ancestral land.

Last year, when members of his Likud party approached him with the idea, Sharon reportedly told them: “The international situation wouldn’t be conducive to expelling the Palestinians.

And the international community was silent.

“Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.”

- Benny Morris

Hell Hath No Fury…

…like a direct mailer scorned.

So long, Harriet.

Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination
By Stephanie I. Cohen
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — President Bush withdrew Harriet Miers’ nomination for a seat on the Supreme Court on Thursday, the White House said. Miers sent a letter to Bush requesting her nomination be withdrawn. Bush said he would “reluctantly” accept her request. The nomination had run into opposition from conservative lawmakers.