The Folly of American Liberals

Tonight, millions of Americans, self-identified as liberals, re-elected Barack Obama as President of the United States. This should not be surprising; his campaign's tactical advantages were profound: 1) an acute advantage among minorities, 2) a more optimistic, clear message about the future (not really what the future will look like, but only that it ought to be better if we go "forward"), and 3) a Republican Party hijacked by a hard right minority and handicapped by moronic candidates (see Akin).

They will, not unlike Bush 2004, assume this victory means the nation supports their agenda by mandate. They will assume their faith in an active role for the federal government was validated by swing voters (mostly suburban females), and they will further assume this role for government will "lift the masses" from economic oppression of the wealthy. They call themselves liberals!

Liberal ideals stem from the notion that freedom of choice should reside at the individual level, whether for abortion or for taxes. Liberal ideals understand that every responsibility we cede to the government results in relinquishing the freedoms intrinsic to those responsibilities. Liberals understand that once power is given to the only legitimate force for coercion; it is very difficult to reclaim it without coercion in return. There is a reason democracies survive for so short a time in the aggregate experience of human affairs.

Encumbered by a pithy understanding of their electoral decisions, they will assume the federal government will defend their interests against the wealthy and the powerful. Newsflash: the wealthy and powerful are going to stay powerful, and the poor are going to stay poor. This is likely to be true not because the government didn't tax enough or subsidize enough, respectively speaking, but because rich people and poor people go about things differently. They view the world differently, and as a consequence their actions are different. This doesn't mean poor people can't demonstrate the behaviors of the (self-made) rich. They can, they do, and their "rags to riches" stories are evidence of this. No, it means that classical economic incentives do not preclude the inevitability of behavior change among the poor. Thus far, federal assistance has not fared well in this respect.

Ultimately, rich and powerful people cannot legitimately coerce, and it is this fact that makes true liberals support the diffusion of political power throughout society. In democratic terms, even 100 rich people competing for power beats 1 government consolidating it. The fair competition for power is the bedrock of democracy.

In democracies, majorities can coerce, and they have. Millions of people that couldn't tell you how many branches of government we have re-elected a man to one of those branches. For demographic reasons, for socioeconomic reasons, for social reasons, and etc... they voted for Barack Obama. That wasn't optimistic, it was folly, and generations to come will literally pay for the ultimate expression of mass ignorance and delusion expressed in my lifetime.