Monday, October 06, 2008


Thomas Sowell wonders if facts matter anymore:
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?
We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Read it all.

He also raises an excellent point: facts don't matter much if they are never reported. Or, if they are reported (finally..after several years) and then minimized, dismissed outright, or whitewashed-- as in this case.

Nevertheless, McCain needs to emphasize the direct connection Obama, the "community organizer" and his fellow Democrats have to the entire financial mess we find ourselves into today. People are going to care more about this issue than they are about an aging anti-American terrorist with whom Obama has had an ongoing political relationship. Obama's Rezko, Wright and Ayers connections clearly show the extent of his poor judgment; but the "community organizing" schtick and Obama's ideological ties to Alinsky must be exposed. This the screwed up thinking that has been slowly eating away at the heart and soul of this country's econony for decades.

And the Democrats in Congress have been the primary conduit for feeding it to the American public.

John McCain, immersed in his "maverick" and "populist" persona is going around blaming "Wall Street greed and corruption" for the mess, but their "greed and corruption" are actually a secondary phenomena in this case--secondary to the insane, "do-gooder" utopian/socialist fantasies of the increasingly leftist Democratic Party.

The social engineers of the left, motivated as they are by their creative utopian aspirations--expressed by the desire to impose (forcibly, if necessary) universal peace, social justice and brotherhood upon humanity--are completely oblivious to the malignant side of their own natures. Both they and the capitalist entrepreneurs of the right who they despise so vehemently are both driven by the darker human emotions: envy, greed and a need to dominate others.

However, there remains an extremely crucial difference between them:

The do-gooder leftist in all the various ideological incarnations--the antiwar crowd, the environmental crowd, the communists, socialists, and assorted collectivists--offers the rationale that he does what he does for the "common good" and for "social justice", "peace" and "brotherhood". His high-minded, self-righteous rhetoric justifies (to him anyway) imposing his will and beliefs on others for their own good; and he will not hesitate to use whatever coercive capablity he has at hand to get others to do what he wants and what he says.

The capitalist, on the other hand, is overtly out to pursue his own selfish profit, and understands he must use persuasion. That is, he must convince people that his ideas and the products of his mind are better than all the rest so that they will be willing to part with their hard-earned money to possess them. His desire for power over others is manifested in an indirect manner because people must wnat what he has to offer and believe that they will benefit from an interaction with him.

There is no parallel social limitations on the behavior of the leftist. This tyrant wannabe does not feel the need to convince others of the veracity or even the effectiveness of his ideas (and, because they ignore reality, they are totally and completely ineffective and ultimately destructive); nor does he accept defeat when others are not interested or resist their implementation. He knows in his heart what is best for everyone, and he will use coercion if necessary. He will not allow options; nor will he permit others do do what they think is right for themselves. Their feelings or concerns are a matter of complete indifference to him. Only his own matter.

The leftist's desire for power is direct and absolute; and this is a direct consequence of his utopian ideology.

The Democrats and the left, through the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, are about to get the ultimate reward for being out of touch with reality--power. Just imagine the economic destruction and chaos they will be able to unleash then!

Economic ideas that should have been long ago discarded into the dustbin of history are making a roaring comeback via the Obamessiah, because conservatives like John McCain can't be bothered to articulate the logical and causative sequence of events to the American people.

Instead, McCain too blames the capitalist system and wants to round up the usual fall guys--business, Wall Street, the old marxist shibboleth "corporate greed and exploitation." Frankly, I think it was extremely creative and adaptive that all these corporate entities who were forced to cheerfully follow the Democrats leftist marching orders, were able to make a really big profit for themselves (and the Democrats in positions of power) along the way. They "made lemonade out of lemons," to borrow one of those treacly optimistic phrases.

But even the efficient machine of capitalism cannot ignore reality indefinitely without suffering consequences for doing so. And, it is an absolute travesty to let them take the fall alone and to reward the very people who have been pulling the strings in this puppet show all along.

Jim Geraghty writes (and would tend to agree with the entire article):
...does McCain want to be president and lead on all issues, or does he just want to handle the easily-explained issues? If John McCain doesn't feel that the Democrats' refusal to confront mismanagement of government-backed institutions that gambled and lost, requiring a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars, isn't worth making an argument about, then you might as well let Obama have the presidency.

Indeed. What would be the difference?

No comments: