By Russ Cote

According to Christina Hoff Sommers, feminist propaganda may be the most prevalent and hardest to counter of the litany of socialist indoctrinations. But the “sea of propaganda” permeates every issue imaginable. I’m just going to say this because there’s no point in finessing it; there exists not a single argument on any policy matter, from economics to the environment, which a liberal can win on the facts. The facts are never in their favor, on any issue. The one here or two there that can even plausibly be said to favor the liberal position are the exceptions that prove the rule. Because of this, liberals must engulf their opponents with a ‘sea of propaganda’.

This ‘sea’ is comprised of several distinct yet interrelated species, all nicely spelled out in Barack Obama’s bible, “Rules for Radicals”, by Saul Alinsky. Browse them and you’ll see that “confusion, fear, and retreat”, “ridicule”, “constant pressure” and “threats” are the methods through which political power is achieved in the absence of coherent thought or intelligent debate. Liberals need nothing more than a five-year olds’ sense of entitlement coupled with a middle school ability to parrot monosyllabic talking points to ‘win’ an argument. Very few liberals that I’ve encountered even make an attempt at rational discussion beyond that displayed by your average first grade bully.

How many times can meaningless phrases like “racist” and “sexist”, among others, be lobbed at political opponents before those on the receiving end simply stop listening to them? Lloyd Marcus and Kevin Jackson, courageous men I greatly admire, have wonderful pieces on American Thinker that explain this from their perspectives. Their focus is on the transparent bias force-fed to blacks by the liberal media and dishonest politicians, white America’s trepidation in discussing the facts about American history and the inevitable “metaphorical plantation of dependence on government” to which the vast majority of blacks are then figuratively chained. A 96% black vote for a black Marxist with no interest in the well-being of black people is the end result of this particular ‘sea of propaganda’.

Ms. Sommers’ article focuses on the demonstrable lies put forth by feminist “intellectuals” that, even when challenged and proven false, nonetheless remain in the literature because the ends justify the means. “Facts”, like morality and almost everything else according to the liberal mindset, are malleable, debatable and ultimately relative. The ‘sea of propaganda’, like the ocean itself, constantly ebbs and flows according to the audience and the goal. You very rarely hear liberals discuss numbers because two plus two always equals four. When you do hear them, however, rest assured that a complicated but phony algorithm, not unlike the bogus climate modeling used to propagate the global warming myth, is not far behind.

In the end, conservatives of all stripes simply need to be informed and armed with the facts. Perhaps more importantly today, however, conservatives also need to condition themselves to deflect any and all charges of racism or sexism levied against them and continue with the debate unfazed by the inanity of their opponent. My contribution to ‘Rules for Republicans’ would be to “ignore baseless accusations of racism and sexism from your opponents, for they are nothing more than the simple hand weapons of an unarmed intellect.”

Don’t even attempt to wade through the ‘sea of propaganda’. Chart your course and defeat every obstacle in the way with a harpoon to the heart. We’re right.

What did moneyed people ever do to you? The answer is probably nothing unless some grumpy tycoon once whapped you with a cane because you disrupted his polo tournament when you had too many wobbly pops and wandered onto his estate; in that case, you had it coming. Most of those wallowing in luxury aren’t out to inflict harm on the rest of us, unless making bitter people jealous counts. On top of that, the opulently snooty do more than prop up particular industries such as monocle assembling, opera hat manufacturing, and brandy distilling: what they do with their money benefits everyone, even the ingrates.

Unfortunately, wagers of class warfare are currently in charge. That’s rotten news all around: the one guaranteed method for making a quasi-depression more depressing is to pursue the Obama route and claw at the thickest wallets. The president wants to fund projects such as universally rotten healthcare, cap and tax, <em>gimme gimme gimme</em> entitlements, and the unnecessary road re-paving that seems to comprise approximately 80 percent of stimulus activity.

But escalating the income tax’s progressive nature is a troubling idea for a bigger reason than the obvious one that it won’t work. Higher rates on the well-off will make the economy bad and the pro-envy people look worse.

It’s not just that taxing upsurges are counterproductive: they’re also unfair. Justice for the comfortable is a notion scoffed at by those who, say, learned about politics from Saul Alinsky. Nonetheless, it’s ridiculous to decide to take whatever we can from someone simply because the victim can afford it. Most animals can survive losing a limb, but it doesn’t make the ensuing hopping any more fun.

Rich people are worthwhile as more than fantastic role models, although it’s entirely constructive to aspire toward not worrying about the rent. Most notably, they buy stuff and invest in companies; both of those actions equal good news for those on the other end of the economic bell curve. Boardwalk people help those slumming on Baltic Avenue without even trying.

The confiscatory mentality can only be justified by pretending that affluent people owe society something. That can’t be true unless one holds that every cash-laden individual is some form of Wall Street-based robber baron/fat cat who profited solely by exploiting the proletariat. Such ideas should remain in Ivy League college textbooks. Everyone else can aspire to work as hard as personally feasible- and keep the rewards.

As with most issues, what’s unhelpful is when the media acts as a cheerleader and not a referee. Virtually every story documenting any percentage hike mentions “increasing revenue” while neglecting to point out who’s funding same augmentation. Call me a laissez-faire lunatic, but I suspect it may be accomplished by taking private citizens’ money out of the economy.

Conversely, descriptions of every tax reduction are phrased by hostile media members in terms of how much will be removed from the government’s coffers. That obviously and conveniently omits that every taxed dollar is removed from a paycheck; a lower fraction does nothing else than let people keep more of what was already theirs. They may even go spend it.

Worse, the neo-East Germans still haven’t realized that humans are affected by conditions. Taking much of what a person makes means the person will stop making so much. The assumption that tax rates and revenues rise exactly concurrently only works if those being fleeced are cyborgs. On the other hand, fleshy people with emotions who aren’t built of gears or Pentium chips are rendered unmotivated by situational factors such as how much is taken from their checks to fund General Motors, midnight basketball, and ACORN.

We’re all harmed by the foolhardy idea that it’s punishably greedy to make over a quarter of a million dollars, the figure which apparently stands as the current cutoff for being obscenely wealthy. And it’s exactly wrong: the truly greedy are those who think governmental entities should be taking money from the more successful and sharing it with everyone. Nothing is more collectively selfish than helping ourselves to a proportionately huge chunk of loaded people’s paychecks.

Meanwhile, we’re already seeing the results of spreading the treasure, specifically that there’s only so much to spread. Regrettably, a certain percentage of people, namely those who are perhaps casual about following politics over time, need this sort of harsh real-world reminder: “Yes We Can” is another New Deal, only with a more charming salesman. Unemployment rises as governmental spending skyrockets, and that shouldn’t baffle anyone.

The best hope is that everyone finally learns the lesson this time. Historically, this is just another spell that will once again prove the same hypothesis. To recap, dragging down high wage-earners doesn’t boost the poor: it only irritates those who are getting soaked.

A level income tax percentage would act like an espresso IV for our battered economy; more importantly, it would end the policy of punishing those who have advanced in their careers. Sadly, Democrats will instead soon try to help themselves to a bigger portion of income from those whose portion is bigger.

In addition to any national-health surtax the majority will attempt to implement, they’ll specifically endeavor to jack up the top federal rate next year when Bush-era cuts expire. Unless they’re stopped, those targeted will be set back for the crime of making themselves more monetarily valuable. It’s politically convenient to go after whoever’s flush. The problem is that it will cost each of us.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hanging Up on High Taxes (geeksaresexy.net)
• It’s Time to Throw Geithner Under the Bus (themoderatevoice.com)
• Wal-Mart and Health Care (professorbainbridge.com)
• The Myth of the Cadillac Plan (thehealthcareblog.com)