Obama's Che Flag

A bit of a back-and-forth between John Cole over at Balloon Juice and Captain Ed. Captain Ed slammed Obama because -- get this -- his campaign office in Houston features a Cuban flag with a picture of Che superimposed on it hanging on the wall. Cole calls Ed a "loyal party hack" and talks about our Cuba policy. Which of course is quite beside the point -- a Cuban flag with a picture of Che on it isn't a critique of America's inane boycott of Cuba; it's an endorsement of a brutal communist despotism and a murdering thug.

In a later update, Cole clarifies that it was Obama volunteers, not staffers, who put up the flag. Well, call me unmoved. If any Republican candidate had volunteers who put up a Nazi or Fascist emblem, or even a Confederate Flag, this would be seen as emblematic of Republican racism and fascism. Surely it says something about Obama -- and the left wing of the Democratic Party -- that his volunteers think a communist emblem is just dandy.

But this shouldn't be a surprise -- it's all part of the double standard. Communism was every bit as evil as fascism -- more evil, by pure body count. And yet Che is chic. Disgusting.

No Enemies To The Left

Ann Althouse links to this "scary, weird" Jane Hamsher post over at Firedoglake. Hamsher is mad because Elizabeth Edwards criticized MoveOn.org over the Petraus/Betrayus advertisement. I mean, Hamsher is really, really, mad. And she lays down the law:

So here’s the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don’t. Do. It.

I can't even begin to catalogue the things that are wrong and creepy, and really off-putting about this statement. And it's not an isolated theme on Hamsher's part -- she links to two of her own prior statements taking the same view. Here's what she said a year ago:

First of all — I don't care if John Kerry was eating live babies on TV, one week out from an election you do not repeat GOP talking points. Ever.

And lest anybody think she didn't mean it, in her most recent post, Hamsher linked to this prior statement and quoted herself at length -- including the "eating babies" part.

Note one thing Hamsher doesn't say -- or at least if she did, I sure missed it. She didn't say to avoid Republican talking points which are wrong, or misguided, or unfair, or stupid. She seems to be saying one shouldn't concede points even if they are true. Granted, the part about "eating babies" is probably exaggeration for rhetorical effect, but we all agree (I think) that baby-eating is a bad thing, worthy of condemnation. The non-exaggerated version of the principle she seems to be articulating is "don't criticize the left, even when they're wrong."

To her, it's not about finding truth or getting the right answer. It's all about tactics, about rhetoric, about PR and fighting the partisan war of words. But mostly it's about getting power, power for its own sake.

I don't want to sound like I'm red-baiting, but isn't this a return to the old communist notion of the "party line"? The idea being that you don't express public disagreement with the party, even if you think the party line is wrong? I seldom see such strident demands for group loyalty among conservatives and libertarians.

Ultimately, this is the collectivist, totalitarian impulse: the desire to crush dissent and stifle debate. The demand for "unity" and group loyalty. It's this sort of Leninist approach to politics that resulted in the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of millions of innocent people in the 20th Century. If the "progressive" movement hopes to form any kind of humane, post-communist left, it is thinking like this that they have to abandon.

Marxist Bombings Shut Down Mexican Auto Plants

Via Instapundit, this article about a series of bombings in Southern Mexico by the "Popular Revolutionary Army," a rebel group located in Veracruz. The bombings, which targeted natural gas pipelines, have idled GM, Ford, Chrysler, VW, and Honda plants in Mexico. Glen speculates that Hugo Chavez is behind it, and I suppose he might be right. But, noxious as he is, Chavez is a symptom, not an underlying problem. The underlying problem is that hard-core Marxist leftism continues to have an appeal in Mexico and Latin America. Oh, it's not a majority view -- of course -- but there are enough people who sympathize with such views that "leftist guerillas" are still a problem.

So what does that say about the desirability of importing a few million more Mexican and Latin American immigrants?

Maybe Communism Really Is Dead

Guest-blogging over at Andrew Sullivan's, Bruce Bartlett (whose book on Bush I quite enjoyed), links to an appraisal of the economic thinking at the Kos Kids Konvention by his "old college chum" Max Sawicky, leftist economist at the union-funded "Economic Policy Institute:"

What sort of economic policy was flogged at Yearly Kos? I'd like to know. It didn't look promising for what any knowledgable person would call progressive policy.

Speakers included Austan Goolsbee, an eminent, very smart professor at the University of Chicago who advises Obama. I would say AG is not a person of the left, no disrespect intended. They also had Hale Stewart, a.k.a. "Bondad," a Kos front-age regular, who is in financial services. HS is a fine fellow, also not much on the left. Then there was Gene Sperling, former Clinton/Rubin economics apparatchnik. Robert Shapiro, former Clinton DoC appointee and DLC/PPI honcho. Some French dude I never heard of.

I find myself agreeing (again) with Bruce Bartlett here:

Max's point is that these guys may be liberal by conventional political definitions, but they are hardly men of the left. He finds this dispiriting; I find it reassuring.

Since there is about a 94% chance that the next President Of The United States of America will be a Democrat, it is indeed reassuring that he or she won't be advised by a true Person of the Left.

There is a good reason for that. What does it mean to be a "Person of the Left"?

The left had its run from 1850 until about, say, 1991. While there were all sorts of differences among leftists, some of which might even matter to a person not immersed in the intricacies of leftist politics, I think it's fair to say that the political Left had two core elements. The first was a radical critique of capitalism and the market economy. They thought that Capitalism was Evil with a capital E -- it made the poor worse off, led to exploitation and a whole host of other evils. Just to be clear, they didn't think that the market economy had imperfections or a few little problems -- they thought it was rotten to the core.

The second element was that they had something to replace capitalism with. Details varied -- greatly! -- but it was some form of socialism. So the idea was that we should have a full-bore centrally-planned economy or live in communitarian villages, or have some form of left-anarchy. Something different than an economy based on private property and market exchnages. This, we were told, would make us all better off. (Well, except for the kulaks, and they got what they deserved anyway.) And, just to be clear, ridiculous as it now seems, one of the key claims was that socialism would do a better job of delivering the goods than capitalism. When Khruschev and Nixon faced off in the impromptu kitchen debate, Kruschev didn't say "we will be poorer but happier." No, he said they would surpass the United States and wave goodbye.

In 1935, a serious, intelligent, rational, informed, humane individual could believe these things. That's simply not possible today. The market economy delivers the goods. Attempts to replace it with Something Radically Better have uniformly failed. Socialism proved itself to be one of the Worst Ideas Ever, responsible for the death of somewhere between 50 and 150 million people in the 20th Century.

Yes, there are a few holdouts who still believe in the radical critique of capitalism and who yearn to replace it with something radically better -- aging hippies, red-diaper babies who cannot admit their parents were evil, black-clad anarchists depressed from Seattle's cloudy weather, morally retarded British science fiction writers, Women's Studies professors at elite universities, and the like. But they are the intellectual equivalents of those Japanese troops hiding out on isolated islands who don't realize the war is long-lost. No longer able to plausibly argue that socialism will do a better job of producing the goods, today's leftist are stuck arguing things like "you have too many choices in the grocery store and that makes you unhappy." Yeah, that's sure going to be winner among those working classes.

Unlike Aggrieved People's Studies professors, economists have to have some passing contact with reality. It is therefore not particularly surprising that even those who advise Democrats have realized that an economy based upon private property and market exchange is basically a Good Thing.

The does not mean, of course, that all questions have been decided. Reasonable people can still disagree about the size and scope of proper regulations governing the market, the size and scope of any government interventions designed to help those less well-off, and the like. I suspect that all of the advisors for Democratic presidential candidates favor more government regulation than I do. But they aren't "people of the left" in the sense that they seek to throw out capitalism and replace it with Something Better. And, like Bruce Bartlett, I think that's a good thing.

The Last "Good" War?

Gloria Steinem graces the digital pages of Huffpo with this little rant about "chick flicks" of all things. Not about the flicks themselves, but rather about the label, which she predictably finds objectionable. How does Steinem define the "chick flick"? Well:

So what exactly is a "chick flick?" I think you and I could probably agree that it has more dialogue than special effects, more relationships than violence, and relies for its suspense on how people live instead of how they die.

Well, if nothing else, Steinem is still good at loading the dice. Your average Meg Ryan vehicle has about as much to do with the way people actually live as Terminator III. "Chick flicks" aren't just about relationships and dialogue; they are stylized dramas designed to create a certain type of emotional catharsis in the audience. We call them "chick flicks" because the type of catharsis which they they create is enjoyed mostly by women.

Steinem wants a new category of movie:

If the "chick flick" label helps you to avoid the movies you don't like, why is there no label to guide you to the ones you do like?

Just as there are "novelists" and then "women novelists," there are "movies" and then "chick flicks." Whoever is in power takes over the noun -- and the norm -- while the less powerful get an adjective. Thus, we read about "African American doctors" but not "European American doctors," "Hispanic leaders" but not "Anglo leaders," "gay soldiers" but not "heterosexual soldiers," and so on.

That's also why you're left with only half a guide. As usual, bias punishes everyone. Therefore I propose, as the opposite of "chick flick" and an adjective of your very own, "prick flick."

Very funny. Steinem, is factually wrong when she says there are "movies' and then there are "chick flicks." In fact, we have a label for the sort of film which she derides: we call them "action movies." Granted, it's a stupid label -- nearly all movies contain action, presumably including Andy Warhol's Sleep (which for the record I have not seen). But it does convey, even if partially, in that in an action movie the main conflict is physical not emotional.

Whereas in your average Meg Ryan vehicle, it's about falling in love and overcoming (usually artificial) obstacles to being with one's beloved. Given the fact that a group of typical little boys will spend hours building buildings out of blocks and then destroying them, while a group of typical little girls will spend hours figuring out who is whose best friend, it is hardly surprising that men prefer movies about doing stuff, while women prefer, well, chick flicks. This seems to be yet another byproduct of human sexual dimorphism. Of course Steinem can't say that, because she has spent the last umpteen years denying the fact of human sexual dimorphism while at the same time bashing men. And her new label is great for that purpose, as it allows her to call a guy a prick if he likes movies that don't appeal to her.

So much for her bit of cultural exegesis. If that were it, Steinem's post would be barely worth noticing. What really stuck in my craw was almost an aside. In discussing World War II movies, she says almost offhand: "After all, World War II was the last war in which this country was clearly right."

Huh?

You can argue the merits of certain wars -- the current Iraq War, Vietnam, the Grenada invasion. But she isn't doing that. She said that World War II was the last war in which the United States was clearly right. Contrary to her casual assertion, the United States was clearly correct in at least three of the wars it's fought since World War II: Korea, the first Gulf War, and Afghanistan.

The Korean War was a war of aggression launched by North Korean communists in an attempt to establish a communist dictatorship in the entire country. While, as the Wikipedia article on the North Korean human rights record indicates, it's hard to get a full picture of what goes on in North Korea, it's clear that it ain't good. They have no civil rights -- no right to criticize the government, or practice religion, or do any of the basic things all of us -- including Ms. Steinem -- take for granted. Their management of their economy is worse than the usual communist average, which is very bad indeed. People starve to death in North Korea. It is one of the most bizarre, brutal, despotic dictatorships in the entire history of the human race -- and that's saying something. But Steinem thinks we weren't "clearly right" in preventing the whole country from being like that.

While Saddam Hussein wasn't as brutal as Kim Il-sung and his son Kim Jong-il, he was still a piece of work. His invasion of Kuwait was an unprovoked war of aggression -- pure brigandage. He apparently thought we were just going to let him get away with it. The fact that Saddam's WMD program turned out to be, well, less than advertised this time around, but as Ross Douthat recently observed, we were shocked in 1991 to discover how far advanced it had been. Given the current mess in Iraq, many are tempted to act as if Saddam Hussein was always nothing but a bad joke. The fact is that a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who controlled Iraq's and Kuwait's oil would have been a menace. Again, the United States and its allies were clearly right to kick him out and end his nuclear program.

Finally, Afghanistan. If the United States isn't clearly right in responding to an actual physical attack on our nation, then we can never be right. I mean, by implication she is saying that the war in Afghanistan was not justified. While you can take issue with how it was waged, it was clearly a response to a direct physical attack. I'm speechless.

The "Blame America First" left: still at it.

Take That, Sicko

Betsy Newmark links to this page which contains photographs of the real Cuban medical system -- you know, the one that Michael Moore didn't see. Take a look -- if you have a strong stomach.

Brad DeLong -- no right-winger, but an economist with a commitment to a mixed economy with genuine market elements -- takes lefties to task with this post on Cuba (later reposted here). As DeLong points out, when Castro took over, Cuba was a developed country -- comparable to many countries in Western Europe. Today it's a middling awful Third World country. With what is likely the best possible implementation of communism and a planned economy, Castro has managed to knock his country down an entire tier.

And if you read DeLong's post, be sure to check out the comments. A few sensible ones, but mostly lame-ass excuses of the blame-America-first sort and a few pathetic attempts to say "they're not that bad, really -- look at their health care and education system!" Want to take bets on how accurate those widely-touted numbers turn out to be when the communist government falls? And, ten years later, the leftists will be saying "we weren't really supporters of Cuba. Not us!"

Literary Leftists

Via Normblog, this article by Terry Eagleton lamenting the decline of the British socialist writer. Eagleton makes a bit of an exception for the execrable Harold Pinter, but even he isn't totally safe from Eagleton's scorn: he characterizes Pinter as a "champagne socialist" and he admits that Pinter's political work is "artistically dreary." So he's a hypocrite and a boring writer, but his heart is in the right place. All is forgiven!

But at least according to Eagleton, British socialist writers are an endangered species, at least compared with prior epochs:

The uniqueness of the situation is worth underlining. When Britain emerged as an industrial capitalist state, it had Shelley to urge the cause of the poor, Blake to dream of a communist utopia, and Byron to scourge the corruptions of the ruling class. The great Victorian poet Arthur Hugh Clough was known as Comrade Clough for his unabashed support of the revolutionaries of 1848. One of the most revered voices of Victorian England, Thomas Carlyle, denounced a social order in which the cash nexus was all that held individuals together.

Carlyle was also an enthusiastic supporter of slavery, but I suppose Eagleton doesn't much care about something like that. In the 20th Century, the Eagleton pantheon includes literary leftists like H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw. And he gives a nod to Brecht and Sartre, despite the fact that, like many leftist intellectuals of their era, they looked the other way at Stalin's atrocities. (Some leftist literary figures will still apologize for Stalin, if they get riled up enough.) So supporters of slavery and mass murder are fine by Eagleton, so long as they are sufficiently anti-capitalist.

But now, well, while most literary types still lean left, they just don't stack up to the old guys.
Eagleton is particularly peeved at Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie, because both of have been outspoken enemies of political Islam. (In Rushdie's case, I suppose it might have something to do with the fatwah. Serious death threats tend to concentrate the mind.) Rushdie's knighthood really sticks in Eagleton's craw.

Fat Man on Keyboard makes an incisive comparison, from the perspective of the democratic left:

So what have these writers done to upset the eminent critic? Exactly what Orwell did; take a morally consistent line against totalitarianism. This is from Orwell’s essay, Why I Write; ‘Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as 1 understand it’. Note that these terms are not mutually exclusive but complementary. For Eagleton, opposition to the totalitarianism of our day automatically excludes anyone as being considered as a partisan of the democratic left.

Fair enough, from Fat Man's perspective. I suspect that, despite their current renegade status, both Hitchens and Rushdie would consider themselves to be men of the left, despite their current apostasy. (Unlike, say, David Horowtiz, who has made his break with the left explicit.)

And yet, while I admire Orwell immensely, he was wrong about the whole democratic socialism thing. During the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, the literary figures like Blake and Byron and even Carlyle can be excused for their error. Clearly, the political economists like John Stuart Mill who fought for things like free trade and private property, and, oh, incidentally for the abolution of slavery were the good guys in that debate. But the Industrial Revolution was indeed a new thing and the gains from it were not initially distributed as widely as one might have preferred. So yeah, you can see how people could be skeptical of the whole capitalism thing.

Likewise, in the immediate post-depression postwar era, a guy like George Orwell can be excused for thinking that some form of socialism was both inevitable and desirable. Don't get me wrong -- he was wrong and people like Hayek and Ayn Rand were right. But one can criticize Orwell's commitment to socialism while recognizing his other virtues. And, unlike people like Brecht and Sartre, he was never an apologist for Stalin.

But today it is simply not possible for a humane, intelligent, informed, compassionate individual to be an advocate of mass full-bore socialism. One can legitimately argue as to whether a mixed economy with significant market elements would be preferable to Laissez-faire free market capitalism. But the central lesson of the 20th century is that markets work. Both the empirical and theoretical evidence is now in, and the radical critics of capitalism were just plain wrong about nearly everything. To the extent that Orwell shared the widely-accepted critique of capitalism, he was wrong.

Perhaps Eagleton is right: perhaps the radical literary critic of the free market is indeed a dying breed. Let us hope so.

Dissing Reagan

P.Z. Myers is one of my favorite bloggers on creationism/evolution stuff and atheism, but his reflexive leftism can be a bit trying. In this post, he asserts that "Reagan was almost as great an incompetent" as Bush. I know that many folks on the left had a visceral hatred for President Reagan, but you know, in 1980 there was this thing called the "Soviet Union" which was aiming thousands of nuclear missiles at us and seemed hell-bent on spreading its evil throughout the world.

It doesn't exist any more. Now, I know that the liberal line is that Reagan had nothing at all to do with that -- the fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable. But it sure didn't look inevitable in 1980. In 1980, they looked like the winning team.

Likewise, in 1980, it seemed that the United States had gone into a permanent economic decline. We were fading -- there was a "malaise" as Jimmy Carter famously said. Now, you can parse Reagan's economic policies if you want, and I certainly think that Presidents get too much credit -- or blame -- for things like the business cycle. But gosh, since the U.S. pulled out of the recession of '82, the economy has done pretty darn well. Yeah, we've had a few recessions (including the one that cost the first President Bush his job), but they've been short and mild. For the most part, it's been an upward trajectory, and that wasn't something people expected back in the late seventies.

Maybe Reagan was just lucky. Yes, he did some things that I didn't agree with -- the Meese Commission report on porn was a load of crap, for example. Yes, there were screwups and scandals. No, he didn't go as far as I would have liked in terms of rolling back big government.

And there's one other thing, P.Z. I know popularity isn't the only measure of a President's competence, but Reagen left office very popular, and George H.W. Bush won the presidency in large part because people thought Reagan had done a good job. That's a far cry from the current President, who has managed to lose his party its majorities in the House and Senate, and who will probably lose it the presidency as well.

May Day

Today is May 1, which means it's May Day -- still a holiday for unreconstructed communists. Over at Volokh, Ilya Somin proposes that May 1 be used to commemorate the victims of communism. The folks at Distributed Republic -- formerly Catallarchy -- have gathered a series of posts commemorating the victims of communism.

I heartily concur. The 20th Century knew two murderous totalitarian ideologies -- Nazism and communism. The victims of the Nazi Holocaust are often remembered, but the victims of communist holocausts -- plural -- are oft forgotten. Well, not by me.