Articles

Sunday, December 29, 2013

A Left-Wing America Stands Alone

American progressives like to think of their country as backward and reactionary compared to Europe. And they have never been more right than now when Europe and the rest of the First World have gone right while America under Obama has been left back.

In America Alone, Mark Steyn envisioned the United States as a beleaguered hope in a dying West. Seven years later, American politics are much less healthy than those of the rest of the free world.

America does stand alone. It stands alone in embracing the rule of the left.

Recently Australia, Japan and Norway welcomed in conservative governments. Tony Abbott, Australia’s new prime minister, is a former heavyweight boxer who attended Oxford and is putting a spoke in the wheel of the Global Warming ecohoax. Japan is casting off its pacifism and standing up to the People’s Republic of China and Norway gave its left-wing government the boot and moved in “Iron Erma” in a coalition with the libertarian Progress Party which opposes taxes and immigration and supports free enterprise.

Australia, Japan and Norway are not outliers. The majority of First World countries now have conservative governments.

Canada has embraced a patriotic foreign policy and energy exploration under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his conservative Likud party have continued to move Israel’s economy toward free enterprise. And even in the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron, for all his follies, is a conservative, even if he is more McCain than DeMint, and has pushed for deregulation and welfare reform.

Sweden’s center-right coalition government has won re-election for the first time in a century. Norway and Sweden, countries that Americans used to consider the very embodiments of Socialism, now both have conservative governments.

In Germany, Angela Merkel will serve a third term as chancellor; although like many European conservative governments, she will have to compromise and form a coalition with the left. The Netherlands still has a conservative government which has come out against multiculturalism and the welfare state.

In Spain, the center-right People’s Party won the biggest majority of any party in three decades and is projected to win reelection. In Poland, the center-right Civic Platform continues to govern. In Greece, it’s the center-right New Democracy. In Portugal, it’s the Social Democratic Party and the People’s Party (somewhat on the right, despite their names). In Iceland, it’s the conservative Independence Party and the Progressive Party (also on the right, despite its name.)

Even Europe’s left-wing parties have had to adapt to the new economic environment. Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who has been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons, has suffered a severe setback in municipal elections and is scrambling to hold her left-wing government together. And even Thorning-Schmidt only made it this far by embracing welfare reform, cutting corporate taxes and slashing unemployment benefits.

The rule of the radical left in the United States is very much an outlier in the rest of the First World where conservative and center-right parties predominate. The conventional First World response to the economic crisis has been to cut spending and reform welfare, while in the United States has spent more money than ever before and expanded welfare.

Much of Europe now favors less federalism and less immigration. The United States has expanded its federal government dramatically and both Democratic and Republican leaders support amnesty for illegal aliens at a time when immigration is politically toxic everywhere else.

The only major European countries with a sizable population and serious economic problems ruled by the left are France and Italy and both are approaching economic collapse. France’s ruling left has become wildly unpopular and Italy is still imploding in slow motion. While the American left insists that historical inevitability is on its side, it has lost nearly everywhere else. America stands alone under the rule of the left, in uncontrolled spending, uncontrolled immigration and the iron hand of the welfare state.

There are key differences.

America’s massive wealth and resources have allowed the left to act as if it could borrow against them indefinitely to finance its big government schemes. Imagine a billionaire’s fortune falling into the hands of his idiot wastrel son who has no idea that money ever runs out.

Smaller countries don’t have the luxury of running up infinite debts and not worrying about how they will be paid back or pretending that impossible rates of economic growth will compensate for trillion dollar deficits.

America is the left’s economic fantasyland because it has so much that they imagine that it will take a long time to bankrupt.

Most European conservative parties are still much less of the right than even the compromised Republican Party. European conservatives are generally closer to liberal Republicans. By European standards, Jim Huntsman would be a typical conservative. Bloomberg running on the GOP ticket would raise no eyebrows in Europe.

Europe is dominated by parliamentary democracies where it would have been impossible for an executive to stay in office on popularity and racial guilt after his actual policies had been completely discredited. In a parliamentary democracy, the 2010 midterm elections wouldn’t have just meant a Republican House of Representatives, but would have booted Obama out of the White House.

Conservatives denounce populist politics in America, but it’s actually the remnants of the system that safeguards political power from populist elections that has kept the Senate and the White House in the hands of the left while turning over the House of Representatives to the Republicans creating a crisis in which the populist body could do nothing, while Obama unilaterally ushered in an imperial presidency.

European conservative parties are also more adaptable because liberal conservative parties can form coalitions with more conservative parties. A similar system in the United States would allow the Tea Party to function as a junior conservative party while the Republican Party continued to function as its more centrist big sister, making conservative concessions to the Tea Party in exchange for its votes.

There are Tea Party leaders who already envision such a move which frightens the GOP leadership. But GOP leaders might want to consider whether such a conservative coalition might not be in their own best interests. The Republican Party would be freed from its right and could play at being moderates without worrying about accusations that it’s a party of extremists, while at the same time there would be a negotiated system of imposing conservative compromises on it at the legislative level.

A Republican Party-Tea Party coalition would probably achieve a lot more reforms considering that even the UK’s coalition between the Conservative Party and the left-wing Liberal Democrats achieved more reforms than the Republicans did during the Bush administration.

Another major difference is that America has a higher percentage of minorities than most other First World countries. In many First World nations, the left has assembled minorities into a welfare coalition. But such a coalition is much more potent in the United States because of demographics and guilt over segregation and slavery.

Higher minority birth rates also mean that the United States has a larger percentage of the youth vote than many First World countries and a younger electorate is dumber and more vulnerable to bells and whistles. A country with an older population would not have embarrassed itself by running around in Obama t-shirts and weeping and fainting at his rallies. Older people are capable of behaving stupidly, but it takes a country with a lower voter age to elect a man whose only real credential was celebrity.

The ultimate ambition of the left is to alter demographics of the United States and the rest of the developed world to a majority-minority population that will allow them to loot the evil racist white minority of its wealth to finance their Socialist schemes. Despite European open border migration, the United States is closer to reaching this brink than many other countries which makes it more vulnerable. As long as minority groups participate in the left’s welfare coalition, immigration means economic collapse.

As long as minority groups participate in the left’s welfare coalition, immigration means economic collapse. There is no possibility of maintaining national prosperity without drastically limiting immigration. Economic conservatism and open borders to welfare populations with voting rights are utterly incompatible and cannot be made to work no matter how many libertarians and Chamber of Commerce politicians argue otherwise.

Finally, there is the Obama factor.

Hillary Clinton would probably have lost in 2012. Most Democratic hacks would have. But the cult of personality built around Obama by the news and entertainment industry has been very hard to breach. Only the “If you like your health plan” lie has finally put a serious dent in his likability and trust ratings.

Obama is something unique. He’s the end product of a venture by liberal billionaires from the financial and tech sectors to build a radical Trojan horse politician. They invested a great deal of money into their project and the dividends have been huge. No other First World country has been victimized by such a calculated scheme or had so many resources invested in hijacking its democracy.

Some 6 billion dollars were raised and spent in the 2012 election. Those are astronomical amounts of money and they are probably only the tip of the iceberg. Beating that kind of spending isn’t easy.

While the rest of the First World moves on, America remains trapped in the defunct economic and political grip of the left. After dedicating enormous resources to taking over the Democratic Party and then the country, the left has turned the United States of America into its Soviet Union, a country out of time, its economy and society wracked by the discredited political and economic theories of the left.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is an outstanding post. It explains the old adage that if you 'give some people an inch,they will take a mile'. Nations should not be places where people with no understanding of that country's national pride or culture, should be allowed to freeload, commit crimes, and attempt to impose their own medieval cultures and laws..Running a country like a giant social justice experiment can only lead to economic hardship and less freedom for its' citizens.
Does no one study history these days ?

Anonymous said...

and when "the right" couldn't deliver on its promises they'll vote "the left" and then "the right" and then left and then right.... until they find themselves overwhelmed by either the chinese, africans or muslims. Either way it's over for mob rule which is what the failure called democracy really is, sadly it will be over for the white race and for western culture.

parisclaims said...

Daniel, I usually agree with just about everything you write, but, in my opinion you're miles off the target re Cameron .He is not a conservative, not even close. He is destroying the conservative party. It looks quite deliberate..

Anonymous said...

"sadly it will be over for the white race and for western culture."

not really. I have a theory. sure there are plenty of immigrants to this country, many Muslims and Africans etc. but also many from eastern Europe. In many cities neighbors are defined by a shared culture and community such as Italian neighborhood, Polish neighborhood, Russian neighborhood etc.

Immigrants from these countries to the US will prevent the decline of the white race. Immigrant communities are what this country is made of.

Keliata

Dennis Latham said...

Even a paramecium should understand the progressive policy of the left won't work. Nothing they do ever works. Obama was put in place to destroy America, and by 2016 that mission will be accomplished. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. How can the NSA prevent anything by spying on citizens when the borders are pretty much open? The only plots they ever stop are plots they create to set people up, so they can get more funding to create more plots. Fuel just shot up 25 to 50 cents a gallon due to unrest in the Sudan, so they say. What a joke. We are being raped and the media ignores it. The real irony is many people who support the left will be executed if the socialists have their way. All mass shooters, as far as I know, have been Liberal Democrats. They always fail to ignore that fact on the news. The real dangerous people in America are the progressives with their violent tendency to gain their ends.

meema said...

Can someone enlighten me? I have always wondered why, in what capacity, does having the most money in the war chest really give the best advantage? Is it crony payoffs? Is it advertising? Is it $1000 a plate dinner invitations where the elite meet to be seen? If it’s advertising does that mean that the sheep are able to be herded by nothing more than the amount of lies they are fed hourly? If so that’s scary.

Does this mean that a grass roots candidate with a real common sense campaign that addressed the tough issues of the majority of Americans without the blah blah blah can’t have a chance against money?

Why? What am I missing?

Chris Mallory said...

"Canada has embraced a patriotic foreign policy ..."

So you mean they are bringing all their troops home from around the world and ending all aid to every other nation? Anything else is NOT patriotic.

fizziks said...

But you neglect to mention that the right wing parties in Europe, Canada, etc are basically equivalent to the Democrats in the US in terms of policies (socialized medicine, safety net, secularism). None of those countries have a major party equivalent to the Republicans, much less theTea Party.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

parisclaims, it's relative. Most "conservative" parties in most First World countries are full of Camerons, if you look closely.

fizziks, the Republicans had quite a hand in the safety net and socialized medicine. You might have a point if we were talking about the Democrats in 1965. Not the Obama left.

Meema, it's a combination. There are plenty of expenses along the way. That said a structured system can be beaten by the right candidate. But he needs to be a hell of a communicator if he's going to compensate for all that money.

Fiona Warburton said...

Sorry Daniel, but - as parisclaims says - you have made a rare error. Your assessment of Cameron is indeeed completely off target. Cameron is the first PM in Britain's history who is an instinctive Marxist. He even forced every one of his cabinet ministers to read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". There is no problem that he thinks government cannot solve; he is so committed to his multi-cultural agenda that he appointed an unelected Muslim supramacist (Warsi) to oversee it while the Overseas Aid budget - which funds dictators and islamic terrorists throughout thr world - is the ONLY budget that is guaranteed to increase year-on-year in real terms while all others are being cut; he has been instrumental in the EU's moves to boycott Israel; and of course his committment to the global warming scam is way beyond any other leader in the world including Obama - a fact which he continually boasts about ("Britain will lead the world in fighting global warming and the transofrmation to green energy) - you should take a look at this article about his Chief Scientific Advisor on Energy and Climate Change:

http://academiccorruption.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/prof-mackay-government-chief-scientific.html

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Most First World politicians tend to be Warmists. Even Abbott isn't breaking with it once in power as much as he ought to. Keeping in mind the general state of the Tories these days, Cameron is about what you expect.

Again, most "conservative" parties have their own Camerons on top.

But there's a sizable gap between Cameron and a true man of the left like Obama.

Anonymous said...

Is Obama really a 'true man' of anything ? The real danger lies in those who finance him and those who vote for him. He seems more like a mean spirited, peevish, Chauncey Gardener, ie. a figment of the media's imagination.

sophie

Anonymous said...

The real problem is that most Americans are politically indifferent and uneducated. Most people don't look more into politics than what they're told by the mediacracy. They will only change the way that they vote when it has impacted them personally and fortunately for us Obamacare has.

Anonymous said...

Pitchfork Obama.

No, that's a noun. Honest.

Anonymous said...

You've encapsulated it well-- Australia is a perfect example of a small pop country that simply can't afford the fantasies of Marxism, despite trying real hard w/Rudd & Gillard and responded by electing Abbott (it is also a predominantly white country).

However, even the sorta right govs you listed all live under the Cathedral umbrella. Lip service must still be paid to equality and democratic platitudes and root values remain fixed on the left. In short, electing a right gov only reduces the speed of the journey over the cliff-- not the trajectory.

We need an entirely new value system based on neo-reaction. Tea Party politics won't cut it and there's no Reagan zombie ready to save the day.

On another blog (Nick Land's), the real question was presented-- as the Titanic approaches the iceberg, do we yell reverse or full speed ahead?

Doug Mayfield said...

"A similar system in the United States would allow the Tea Party to function as a junior conservative party while the Republican Party continued to function as its more centrist big sister, making conservative concessions to the Tea Party in exchange for its votes."

I really liked your article. Well done.

But I must challenge the quote above. In my view, the reason that some Republicans, whom I'll call RINOs, are antipathetic to the Tea Party movement is because they share certain basic premises with the Democrats.

Consider the questions 'What is the relationship between the individual and the state? Does the individual have certain specific rights which should be inviolate?'

In my view, the RINOs answer these questions in the same basic way as do Democrats. That is, RINOs believe that individual rights flow from government and are entirely conditional on government approval, which means, in effect, there are no individual rights at all.

The RINOs want government to take over and control our personal and social lives, while the Democrats want to complete their destruction of our economic and professional lives.

The concepts of freedom and absolute and inviolate individual rights, and their corollary, strictly limited government, make RINOs very uncomfortable.

The intellectual battle within the Republican party is certainly painful for all of us who want to see the Democrats stopped from dumping more of their socialist poison into the law books, but in the long run, that battle may be healthy if it forces a close examination of the nature of good government.

roger in florida said...

In almost all of the countries you mention the so called "conservative" parties are really elected on the premise that they can manage the welfare state better than the alternative left or center left parties can. With the single issue of immigration an exception; most indigenous people are opposed to the immigration policies followed by the West, in Europe and the USA.
There is lot of bleating here about Cameron, but he is typical, talks a good right wing game before election, being very careful to assure the electorate of his simultaneous commitment to all the major welfare state programs (that is quite an oratorical trick, and goes to show how stupid most of the electorate are!).
We have just seen the GOP fold on the miniscule cuts of sequestration, how can we possibly expect any real financial discipline?
I fear we are going to see the real results of an expanding money supply into a decreasingly productive economy, and it is not going to be pretty.

Anonymous said...

The Democratic Party is like a giant onion that keeps getting unpeeled time after time. That's what my city has done for literally 40 years and has played a large role in its destruction. People never learn.

Conservatives nationwide? I don't know...I still have deep reservations about the Tea Party. I'll abstain my vote until there is a better option.

The Conservatives need to take a hard look at way many moderate Conservatives are leery about the Tea Party.

Keliata

XisDshizL said...

meema asked: "Can someone enlighten me? I have always wondered why, in what capacity, does having the most money in the war chest really give the best advantage?"

The money allows the left to select the battleground states, and flood them with ads in the run up to the elections. They vastly outspend the right in a concentrated way, and you can watch the results in the tracking polls in the months and weeks prior to the election.

The low information voters then act based on the misinformation of the media saturation in their area.

There is a video about how Obama was elected where they did exit polling of Obama voters from 2008. None of these voters knew who had been in control of both houses of Congress for the prior two years (Obama and the Democrats), and who's policies scuttled the economy, but they all knew the price tag of Palin's wardrobe.

DenisO said...

The so-called "Tea Party" is not a political Party; but older Americans, who, all their lives, worked hard and avoided politics. They have just had "enough" of Government spending to buy votes, and both Parties do it. The Republican leadership has no genuine convictions, other than staying in power and getting rich there. They think their odds improve by not angering illegal immigrants and the welfare class; so they decline to really fight the Left's Socialist policies. We have to get rid of those RINO's like Lindsey "Amnesty' and John McCain (next time). Graham and Mitch McConnell are running again in 2014, and I will give what support I can to their primary opponents. The only way we can change things is to make them fear us more than their Democrat opposition. If Lindsey loses the Repub. primary, that will send a fear-inducing message. Guarantee it.
Regards,

Michelle Mears said...

Amen.....I am an independent and we are a large group I personally refuse to belong to the right or left. But I think many are independents because they cant understand why they don't like the current democrats they cant put their finger on it and are hesitant to call themselves a republican.....this is what they are missing they are missing this explanation. I have heard this before years ago in 2010 ....keep sharing and spreading this information. Communism socialism grows with ignorance

sykes.1 said...

roger in florida has it right. All of the countries you mention have socialist economies that are being administered by center left parties. Even the parties labelled conservative in Europe, like Merkel's, are in fact left wing parties from the American perspective. Under Obama, America has merely joined the universal socialist world.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

"All of the countries you mention have socialist economies that are being administered by center left parties. Even the parties labelled conservative in Europe, like Merkel's, are in fact left wing parties from the American perspective."

Arguably the same is true of America.

overcaffeinated said...

Whether or not you consider people like Cameron true conservatives, the point is that voters shifted rightward. Perhaps not far enough to the right, but in all these cases they moved from a more liberal government to a more conservative one.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

exactly, it's also about voter perception no matter how liberal the candidates really are

Anonymous said...

The real question is whether the American Socialist agenda can be rolled back...ever. I think not. It has been full steam ahead for most of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. The Republican party is incapable, or unwilling to stop this agenda and is often a willing participant. The recent squandered chance to defund Obamacare being the most recent example. The taxation of largely white communities to fund minority communities will not end. The only possible solution is a separatist movement that has a government based on the original Constitution adapted to prevent the Democrat/Socialist agenda and by weakening the Executive Branch.

fsy said...

I find it hard to imagine how any true conservative could even want to be President today. Unless he chooses to completely ignore his job description Obama style, he would find himself in charge of administering a huge socialist bureaucracy and saddled with years of ridiculous foreign policy. The real key probably is the legislatures and state rights, as a beginning.

Anonymous said...

Norway's Progress Party wouldn't recognize "libertarian" if it sat on them. They are traditional European right wing populists (albeit more so based on the discomfort which comes from having too much oil money to be able to spend it all without causing serious inflation; less on the traditional fear of immigrants), but their libertarian values are mostly about striking a pose. They are not afraid of government power - as long as it is applied according to their preferences - and they do not shy away from using government mandates to push people around or hand out entitlements. Obamacare is far to the right of anything Norway's Progress Party would ever dream of, and, conversely, they would have been run out of town on a rail if they presented their health care policies at a Tea Party rally.

I am afraid the world has not changed as much as you guys seem to believe. The U.S. is not heading towards any form of Socialism that would be recognized by a socialist, and Europe is not moving to the right of the U.S. (Also, you might ponder the fact that state rights as such is about at which level government should occur, not whether government is socialist or conservative. Shifting power from states to feds is not, in itself, socialism.)

The real problem for any true conservative is the dumbing down of the right. Which is not to say that conservatism is inherently stupid, actually it is inherently less stupid than socialism, since it is more reality oriented and adaptable, but it is impossible to establish a solid conservative alternative based on misrepresentations of reality.

Not that y'all will take my word for it, of course...

Post a Comment