American Tyrants

Pages: 1 2

The American liberal would still like to play at being humble, a 99 percenter fighting against the chimera of a 1 percent oligarchy. But the entire 99 percent theme is that the 1 percent isn’t paying enough taxes. And whom do those taxes go to but to the administration and employment of the professional class warrior millionaires.

It is the very Everest of hypocrisy for the members of the oligarchy to be bemoaning all the extra tax money that could be used to pay their six figure salaries, while passing off their naked greed as a crusade on behalf of the oppressed.

There is nothing of working class advocacy in a government party looking to shovel more tax revenues into the insatiable gaping maw of its bureaucratic machinery. The idea that those monies will be used to help the downtrodden is a delusion that a brief glimpse at how much money went to connected companies and to the expansion of the government bureaucracy should easily cure. This isn’t any 99 percent at work here. It’s the 9 percent against the 63 percent.

Warren thinks of herself as not wealthy because despite her millions, she is engaged in the pious practice of public service. However big her financial resources may be, they are part of the collective whole of the oligarchy and in a different category altogether from the wealth that is earned or inherited.

To the American liberal, riches are not a matter of economics, but of identity. Wealth is a moral entity, not an economic one. What distinguishes pious millionaires like Warren from the heathens who make their money the old fashioned way is that the former achieve it through the moral pursuit of the public good, which is all the more pious for taking them to a Harvard professorship or a job in government, while the latter achieve it through economic transactions in the private sector. The former is a form of public service, the latter is public exploitation.

But a closer look at the bones and carcass of this system turns those definitions on their head. It is the Warrens who are the exploiters, consuming the wealth of a nation and spawning more committees, regulations and regulatory committees to keep on feeding off the wealth. What they give to us in exchange for what they take is not a service, it is oppression masquerading as feudal protectionism.

The American liberal is eager to protect us from powerful interests, but who will protect us from his protection, and who will turn off that protection and the money it costs us to pay for it, and worse still the freedoms that are consumed in order that we may be properly protected from ourselves.

No tyrant looks in a mirror and sees an oppressor. Tyrants are always protectors of the people. And our own American Tyrants are equally certain that they are the protectors of a people who would otherwise run off cliffs, throw lawn darts at each other, tear the tags off mattresses, make racist jokes, open pill bottles too easily, have inappropriate opinions and reinforce the oppressive heteronormative patriarchy which they have thoughtfully replaced with a vast echoing bureaucratic state in which everyone is free to be different in the same way.

The American liberal does not like the people very much. Most disguise it a bit better than Elizabeth Warren but that discomfort is always there. And the discomfort comes with a distrust. They don’t like us and they don’t trust the sort of shenanigans we might get up to when they aren’t looking. Instead they are always looking, always nudging, always telling us what to think and how to live and otherwise protecting us from ourselves.

The tyrannical impulses were always there in American liberalism and like water on lilies, power brought them forth. Now we live under a system which strangles us to protect us from ever getting rid of it. The men and women strangling us smile awkwardly and tell us that it is for our own good. This tyranny for our own good requires that they toss aside our laws and replace them with their own. It requires that they spend us into bankruptcy, with much of the proceeds going to them, but in the name of a higher cause. And it demands that we praise them and if we won’t do that, then it demands that we shut up and stop broadcasting our dissatisfaction. There is no place in their ideal national community for people like us.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Pages: 1 2

  • LibertyLover

    This article is an excellent summary description of the modern American Progressive; self righteous, condescending and without scruples.

  • Amused

    ha,ha , yea it is , just like the right . "do as I say ,not as I do " , YOU and the author are all wet .

    • mrbean

      I was right, You really are intellectually challenged. Nahhhh,, you're stupid!

      • pagegl

        Well, that and a mindless prole consuming the spoon fed pap of his leaders.

    • wsk

      mucking foron!

  • Amused

    Good exercise in "turnabout " and hypocrisy though , Dave . BTW Dave , Reagan an "alleged conservative " and republican , expanded big government by 18 % .
    Who did you say was
    " the govmint paty " ?

    • truckwork

      I doubt that Reagan did so on his own, despite sources that you would have to support that figure.

      Expansion of government under any prior administration (with the exception of illegal actions taken by Obama) had to be agreed upon by both the House and Senate as part of a budget proposal (which the present Democrat controlled Senate has to do yet for the past 1000 or so days).

      Any expansion was caused by critics of Ronald Reagan who expanded entitlement programs to secure votes from those who continue to use these programs in lieu of gainful employement.

  • miscellany

    I respect Mr. Greenfield's thoughtfulness and agree with much of it, but he appears to lump Christianity in with the 'New England preachers' who want to control every aspect of one's life. This is the same mistake the liberals have made about conservatives, calling us Bible-thumping, gun-toting rednecks.
    It is easy to do if you do not understand that religion, secular or otherwise, is not the same as the Christianity that liberates and has us respect and sacrifice for one another because we do not live to lord it over others as progressives (the American brand of fascists) do.
    It is easy to say 'I am a Christian,' but that doesn't make you one. And if Mr. Greenfield is trying to paint the Great Awakenings of the 17 and 1800's as a bunch of busybodies, he's broad-brushing the whole movement with the tar of the hypocrites.
    Rather, it is self-righteousness that he's decrying, and rightfully so. Real Christianity also condemns this. And this self-centeredness is a built-in facet of the nature of human beings–it is why the secular governments of Europe and the liberals of the U.S. are kindred spirits.
    Mr. Greenfield is right about the desire of people to rule in others' lives. And that is what made the Christian early United States so special and different.

  • Guest

    Hey, we make pretty good maple up here in New England!

  • Guestg

    Syrup, that is.

    • mrbean

      He could have meant maple cabinets? Duhhhh….

      • klem

        They make good maple cabinets too.

    • tagalog

      The maples are pretty nice, too, especially when their leaves change color in the fall.

  • mrbean

    Liberals are control freaks who want to even control your life. The Obama administration has one overriding objective—tying together health care “reform,” non-stop meddling in the economy, and hard-Left Supreme Court appointments—it is that big government should make all the decisions for you. When it comes to how you live your life and soend your money, only liberal Washington bureaucrats know best.

  • george a. way jr.

    and satan can appear as a "angel of light " on both sides of the coin!!!!!!!!!!!! , mankind as a whole is sick and debased!!! , so keep slinging the mud boys and girls while we continue to slide into "sodom and gomorrah the sequel !!!!!!!!!!!

  • rightkindofred

    I agree with much of the article; the current American left is certainly not populist, and is largely a foreign import, Anti-American to the core.

    However, it's not true that the American left was not in the past populist. Read about William Jennings Bryan: Democrat. Christian Fundamentalist. Populist liberal. Certainly such a combination is impossible today, but such was not always so.

  • Robert Pinkerton

    Despite being "politically 'incorrect'" in two different ways, http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson12.html is very much in point of this article.

    From Isaac Asimov we get something else, that looks like a reiteration of Aesop, in point: A man and a horse both were menaced by the same wolf. For the sake of closer cooperation against the common foe, the man asked the horse to consent to saddle and bridle. Directly they had slain the wolf together, the horse asked the man to remove the saddle and bridle. The man's repsy? "The hell you say: Gidd'yap, Dobbin!"

    In this, the "man" is the Left. The "horse" stands for us commons.

    I would very much like to see "Liberal"/Left/Socialist anti-working-class class-bigotry spread all ofer this and other sites in the Right, with full documentation.

  • Sage on the Stage

    And Theodore Roosevelt was the Republican reformer; who had help sometimes,
    from Grover Cleveland. But let's not forget, that even then, the lefty progressives had a nasty, kooky fringe element. "Big Bill" Haywood, labor organizer responsible for the Haymarket riot; Harry Orchard, assassin of Idaho Gov. Frank Steunenberg; and who was that guy who shot Henry Clay Frick? But in those times, an entrepreneur could found a company and succeed. Now, many entrepreneurs are choked by regulations, before they even get started.

    • tagalog

      Don't forget the McNamara brothers and the bombing of the L.A. Times building, the leftist Oklahoma City bombing of its day.

  • Isherwood

    And yet Timothy McVeigh, a war-damaged vet, was anti-government. And he killed working citizens who were utilizing a government building, in other words a building that belonged to them. Entrepreneurs like Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg – are they choked by government, or benficiaries of government investment that provided the foundation for the internet? Or were they enabled by government invest to build businesses that have flourished? I am thankful for the progressive contributions good government can and has made. The regulations that have helped provide me with a safe food supply and scientific medical practices would not and could not exist in the fantastical "free" market world imagined by today's so-called conservatives, and which the mega-corporations are so busily trying to destroy. I never see the so-called "conservatives" on this site advocate the conservation of anything. Profligate military spending, blind defense of Israeli crimes, and the anti-American hatred of the many accomplishments that the majority, through government, have achieved since the time of Teddy Roosevelt, seem to be the key themes here. Democratic government is us working together to do the things the market cannot do. If you want a free market, move to Somalia, you'll love it! Meanwhile those of us who want the state to balance the market, provide for the least of these, and prevent the greedheads at Goldman Sachs from stealing everything from us will keep our shoulders to the wheel to make our country better, despite your oppostion. I fear too much power in concentrated government, but I fear unregulated, out of control corporations even more!

    • LibertyLover

      You're wrong about McVeigh. Right or wrong, he was angry over the Fed's attack on Waco. He was angry about ATF, DOJ and Janet Reno killing a bunch of folks because they didn't like their religion. McVeigh was wrong and paid with his life, but it was not about anti-government sentiments.

      • Robert Pinkerton

        Sir, does not the Constitution subsume "levying War upon the United States" under the rubric of treason?

        I acknowledge that separating State from People is difficult — to say the least — in a democratic republic.

        • LibertyLover

          McVeigh was a criminal who struck-out because he had a wrongheaded idea of justice. Nothing more, nothing less. He was not accused of treason, nor should he have been, any more than Bill Ayers, Obama's old Chicago buddy.

          • Isherwood

            McVeigh was a victim of the war machine who turned violent. How many more ticking timebombs have been planted by Bush and Obama's wars? They hate the state that used them to enrich the one percent who profit from death and destruction. End the wars, heal the nation!

          • Maxie

            Liberals such as you are the enablers of the radical (Marxist) left which is responsible for the deaths of some ninety-four million people in a dozen countries (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Guevara et al.) Read "The Black Book of Communism", "Last Exit to Utopia" by Jean-Francois Revel and, especially, "The Politics of Bad Faith" by David Horowitz. btw: Goldman Sachs should have a (D) after its name.