Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
The new nomenklatura
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


One of the bitter ironies of the 20th century was that communism, which began as an egalitarian doctrine accusing capitalism of selfishness and calloused sacrifices of others, became in power a system whose selfishness and callousness toward others made the sins of capitalism pale.

The ruling elites of the Soviet Union, called the "nomenklatura," had their own separate and superior stores where ordinary citizens were not allowed to shop, their own separate and superior medical facilities, as well as their own separate and superior living quarters, all off-limits to the masses.

Everyone in communist societies addressed one another with the egalitarian term "comrade." But some comrades had the arbitrary power of life and death over other comrades.

Soviet communism is now history but people who talk equality and practice elitism, who wrap their own selfishness in the mantle of idealism, and who sacrifice others on the altar to their own vision without a moment's hesitation are not only still with us but have become the norm on the left.

They don't have nearly the power that the Soviet dictatorship had. But they use whatever power they do have in the same spirit. The green ideology of today, like the red ideology of the past, takes it for granted that other people do not have the same rights as the new nomenklatura.

Where the new nomenklatura enjoy a particular lifestyle in a particular community, then the power of government is used to preserve that lifestyle and freeze that community where it is, even if that means freezing out other people who may not have the same money or the same lifestyle preferences.

Monterey County, California, is a classic example, though by no means unique. A recent story in the Wall Street Journal quoted residents of that coastal community as saying how much they liked its lifestyle and ambiance -- as a justification of laws that make it nearly impossible for anyone with less money to live there.

First of all, laws forbid building anything on three-quarters of the land in that county. Existing residents who support such laws don't own that land but they can politically keep others from living on it, which is the whole point of much rhapsodizing about "preserving" this and "saving" that.

Land prices skyrocket when the supply of land is artificially and drastically reduced, which means that housing prices become astronomical. The consequences for those on the outside looking in were illustrated by the story of a farm worker in Monterey County whose family had been living in a room for years but who now could finally afford to buy a small house.

This farm worker was described as "thrilled" to the point of tears as he bought a 1,013-square-foot home for $490,000, even though it would take 70 percent of his income to make the mortgage payments. He planned to rent out one of the rooms to try to make ends meet.

His situation was not as unusual as it would be in most other places. The average share of income required for someone with the average income in Monterey County to buy the average home there is 60 percent.

But of course this does not apply to the existing residents who bought or inherited their homes in years past. Far from suffering economically from the laws they pass, they see the market values of their own homes go up by leaps and bounds.

One of these residents describes herself as a liberal Democrat and an ardent environmentalist. Election results in this and other affluent counties in coastal California suggest that she is very much the norm among the new nomenklatura.

The green nomenklatura talk egalitarianism like the old red nomenklatura and similarly ride roughshod over others while doing it. Their economic ethnic cleansing has driven tens of thousands of blacks out of some liberal Democratic counties.

There were 79,000 blacks living in San Francisco in 1990 and 46,000 today. So many people with children are leaving these bastions of liberal Democratic environmentalists as to force many schools in these counties to close.

But the new nomenklatura go around feeling good about themselves while leaving havoc in their wake.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
From TomBreyer to BurtB
You asked:

"However, Why should Conservatives accept the words of liberal lies? We should call them as we see them, not accept them as workable dodges."

I agree. We should call them on their lies and tell them to stop accusing others of racism or worse just because others do what liberals do.

But getting this name-change will neither alter their behavior nor discredit the basic acitivity Sowell considers wrong.

You asked:

"Further, why should it be acceptable to allow a few well connected individuals to change the zoning on land and not have the land owners compensated? If there is no cost to an action, that action will be invoked more and more often."

It shouldn't be and that is why the Kelo decision must be overturned. Furthermore, the only way to make liberals understand the consequences of their actions is for the Conservatives to become "the unintended consequence" and make liberals pay for the costs. Unfortunately, that is not what Conservatives do.

See, BurtB, every ideology, at one point or another, creates these "unintended consequences" that backfire on the ideologue. The liberals quest for perfect equality and freedom sometimes produces results that hurt liberals themselves. Liberals then have to invent workarounds to right the mistakes they make. Hence, "riffraff" becomes "environment" and other forms of hypocrisy.

The Liberal rationalizes these hypocrtical acts because, on balance, they are "doing good" and they deserve to be rewarded for doing good. Thus, we see how flexible liberal morality creates solutions to "unintended consequences" that make liberal lives better but wreak havoc on everyone else. Townhall.com and talk radio exist precisely because of this phenomena.

And yet, why should this happen? Shouldn't conservatives oppose this? They should, but conservatism suffers from its own "unintended consequence": It is very inflexible and does not allow the use of liberal methods to combat liberalism. The conservative focus on systemic rules and principles that benefit all (including rules that prevent totalitarianism) prevents the kind of nuanced and targeted use of power that would greatly aid us in defeating liberal machinations. Heck, we can't even muster enough political support to seize David Souter's house.

This rigidity gives liberals an enormous advantage over conservatives. Liberals know they can do whatever they want because conservatives are hemmed-in by their ideology. That is why liberals never worry about "the law of unintended consequences". They never have to worry that a conservative would use these rules against them.

So, BurtB, when you ask why liberals should be the arbiters of economic activity...well...they already are. This is because conservatives are too busy acting like computer systems designers (always reacting to threats) instead of acting like computer hackers (the ones that cause the threats).

This is why I'm making this argument. I want these kind of liberal powers to be used by conservatives to keep our own "riffraff" out of our lives and, one day, hopefully, out of our country (like renters, leftist, hippies, and such). Once liberals see that their cries of hypocrisy fall on deaf ears, they will then start thinking twice about enacting certain laws...assuming we don't end up killing all of them first.






sorry for the double
seems my service has problems

TomBreyer rationalizes BS terms
I agree with your argument that the liberal elite in general uses words like "environmentalism", when they really mean "keeping out the riffraff".

And I would not want to live in a town with no Zoning. I have a friend who lives in what is considered the metropolitan area of Mexicalli, and there is no way to keep the paint factory from opening half of a block from a brand new development of single family dwellings. In this case, it was corruption that allowed the Paint factory owner to buy the three houses he then bulldozed to get enough land build his factory.

However, Why should Conservatives accept the words of liberal lies? We should call them as we see them, not accept them as workable dodges.
Further, why should it be acceptable to allow a few well connected individuals to change the zoning on land and not have the land owners compensated? If there is no cost to an action, that action will be invoked more and more often. Eventually, The Renters (who outnumber the Landlords) will vote for themselves "free" upgrades. Would such a state devolve into a corrupt totalitarian system like that of Mexico, where only the well connected can become wealthy. Or Would the Liberals be the sole arbiter of economic activity, with something like a cross between the worst parts of French and Dutch economies?

TomBreyer rationalizes BS terms
I agree with your argument that the liberal elite in general uses words like "environmentalism", when they really mean "keeping out the riffraff".

And I would not want to live in a town with no Zoning. I have a friend who lives in what is considered the metropolitan area of Mexicalli, and there is no way to keep the paint factory from opening half of a block from a brand new development of single family dwellings. In this case, it was corruption that allowed the Paint factory owner to buy the three houses he then bulldozed to get enough land build his factory.

However, Why should Conservatives accept the words of liberal lies? We should call them as we see them, not accept them as workable dodges.
Further, why should it be acceptable to allow a few well connected individuals to change the zoning on land and not have the land owners compensated? If there is no cost to an action, that action will be invoked more and more often. Eventually, The Renters (who outnumber the Landlords) will vote for themselves "free" upgrades. Would such a state devolve into a corrupt totalitarian system like that of Mexico, where only the well connected can become wealthy. Or Would the Liberals be the sole arbiter of economic activity, with something like a cross between the worst parts of French and Dutch economies?

To UncaAlby from TomBreyer
I completely understand and I'm largely sympathetic with the view that we are over-regulated and that we should have fewer such regulations.

The problem is that some regulation will always be necessary and that those regulations are likely to exceed the minimal-state favored by libertarians. Nowhere is this more true than with property.

With regard to land and landed property, it is simply not possible for you to do whatever you want with your own property. The effect of externalities is too great, which is why neighborhoods are zoned for commercial, or residential, or agricultural, or industrial, or non-development use. Without these rules, you would have almost complete chaos since these externalities will be very real problems and not something made-up by liberals.

All the bs terms we hear from liberals about "beautification", or "conservation", or "environmentalism", or "historical preservation" are just weasel words for what traditionally is called "keeping out the riff-raff", in a society where egalitarian ideology has made such an activity disreputable. Yet, it is a necessary and important activity because it prevents certain externalities.

Think of all the regulations keeping people out of certain counties similar to the immigration laws we use to keep most of the world's population out of the United States. One could argue that is totalitarian. After all, it's unfair to keep people out. Yet, we know that importing the world's riff-raff would quickly make America very undesirable and ruin it for the native-born here. Would that make sense? Of course not. If, then, it doesn't make sense to argue that the people of America should make it easier for everyone in the world to live here, then why should the people of Monterey County be forced to make it easier for everyone to live there?

For all of Thomas Sowell's brilliance he, and other economists, still need to have a more realistic view of the real world.

TomBreyer - Where does it End?
quoth TomBreyer: "... counties are still made up of local communities. County boards are still elected by the residents that live in these local communities. The locals are the ones implicitly approving ... the new regulations."

True.

And states are made up of counties.

And the Federal government is made up (sorta) of states.

At what point do we say regulations that keep people from doing what they want with their own property -- for the ostensible purposes of "Beautification", or "Conservation", or "Environmentalism", or "Historical Preservation", or what have you -- turn into "Totalitarianism?"

The fact that people have not voted out the governance that keeps out *other* people doesn't change whether or not it's the proper purvue of government. Most people are not even aware of the concern, and even when they are, the general reaction is, "Oh, this means *my* property values have skyrocketed? COOL!!"

Response to sloopy's "Sorry, TomBreyer"
Sloopy:

You claim:

"These are not local cummunities engaged in neighborhood planning, as you imply. These are ENTIRE COUNTIES regulating out the undesirables.
I repeat, these are NOT neighborhood restrictions!"

But counties are still made up of local communities. County boards are still elected by the residents that live in these local communities. The locals are the ones implicitly approving (or at least not disapproving) the new regulations. If the regs were that bad, don't you think these county boards would be voted out?

You claim:

"Not even close. Not in intent and not in reality. They are not preserving property values, they are causing their own property values to SKYROCKET and others' property values to PLUMMET.

If you were unfortunate enough to own undeveloped property in the county when these restrictions were passed, well...TOO BAD! Because it's worthless now. You can never do anything with it. It now functions as barriers to keep the 'elite' isolated."

They are causing the majority of property values to skyrocket (developed property) while causing the minority of property values to plummet (undeveloped property). But this happens all the time and why not?

Look at it in reverse. When a sparsely populated county zones farmland for residential development, this will have a deleterious effect on the only developed subdivision with unsold units. The developer will suffer a loss in economic value, but more people could now live in the area and property values across the board will increase.

I agree that I would hate to own a property like that, but I would also hate to own a property next door that allows you to do things that affect my property values.


Human Nature
Sadly, human nature is and will always be human nature, which means communism will always fail. The corrupt at the top will not be able to resist their own appetites, and the system will not be able to sustain itself for long, it will always morph into dictatorship.

I found this site via a link on http://www.craniaamericana.com/forum/index.php, and I am enjoying this site, thanks!

Sorry, TomBreyer is WRONG!
TomBreyer writes: "He is advocating that no local community should have any say in how their neighborhood develops.."

Not even CLOSE. You are either misrepresenting or misundertanding what is going on here.

These are not local cummunities engaged in neighborhood planning, as you imply. These are ENTIRE COUNTIES regulating out the undesirables.
I repeat, these are NOT neighborhood restrictions!

You say "..their real intent to preserve their property values..". Not even close. Not in intent and not in reality. They are not preserving property values, they are causing their own property values to SKYROCKET and others' property values to PLUMMET.

If you were unfortunate enough to own undeveloped property in the county when these restrictions were passed, well...TOO BAD! Because it's worthless now. You can never do anything with it. It now functions as barriers to keep the 'elite' isolated.

By artificially restricting land use, these libs have
a)made themselves potentially wealthy
b) effectively segregated themselves and
c) stolen wealth from others (the owners whose property is now worthless barriers around the 'elites' communities)

Sorry, Sowell is WRONG
As much as I respect Dr. Sowell, I simply cannot agree with his take on liberal yuppies and professionals using regulations to ensure the state of the communities they bought into.

In a few words, what’s wrong with that?

Yes, it’s hypocritical and annoying to listen to rich Leftists preen themselves over their exquisite concern for the environment while hiding their real intent to preserve their property values, but…honestly…would anyone act differently, especially in this dishonest liberal society?

Consider what Dr. Sowell is implicitly advocating. He is advocating that no local community should have any say in how their neighborhood develops if, in any way, that development has an impact on the ability of future unknown others to settle there, in whatever numbers and at whatever housing prices happen to appear. In effect, he is arguing that every homeowner should face a swift devaluation in the value of his property.

In other words, I should continue paying a $500,000 mortgage on a house that is driven down to $200,000 in value because preventing Mega-Developer from doubling the housing stock is forbidden. Under these circumstances, who would ever buy a house? It’s like buying a stock at its market peak.

In fact, let’s consider the stock analogy. Would Dr. Sowell feel it okay for the CEO of a company to intentionally halve the value of his company stock? After all, it should be a wash, right? The current shareholders lose but the new shareholders, who are able to buy the stock at a cheaper price, win? Would that be okay?

Of course it would not. CEO’s have a fiduciary duty to their current shareholders, not to future unknown shareholders. Likewise, mayors and town councils have a duty to their current voters and property owners, not to future unknown voters and property owners.

Not convincing enough? Let’s look at a real world example. What has done a better job staving off the immigrant invasion of California: The Northern California, high-browed, eco-NIMBY-ism or the Southern California, rock-ribbed, laissez-faire capitalism? Which parts of California faired worse against the invasion: The part that was hard to move into or the part that was easy to move into? Which parts of California are now moving elsewhere, I wonder, the southern or the northern?

Liberals may be a lot of things, but they, too, must be coldly rational about the affairs that impact their own lives, affairs like buying the most expensive asset one can own: a house in a nice, safe, stable neighborhood with good schools.

Republicans will pay a stiff price if they engage in even principled attacks against these activities.

Calling it a “Nomenklatura,” no matter how apt, doesn’t help.

commie take over
Mike, the commies ARE taking over. Kruschev (sp?) said they would bury us. Bury us from within. With race, with the media, with words, with our schools, with our own devices more or less and from the the day of that speech to today, there has been a lot of success that has come about. USSR may have collapsed but in all fights, both sides get hurt some, even the winner. From what I have read (and this should be research-able) the founder of the ACLU and the founder of planned parenthood where card carrying members of the communist party.

The new nomenklatura
I love it when Robin Hood is mentioned. He did not actually "steal from the rich and give to the poor". The "rich" was the government who got their money by taxing the people to death. Robin Hood took the tax money and gave it back to the people. In other words, Robin Hood initiated a TAX CUT.

Leftists in academia
I've noticed the same sort of behavior in academia that Thomas Sowell talks about in liberal enclaves. In academia, leftist professors want diversity in the professoriate in terms of race and gender, but NOT in terms of class or economic background. The reason is simply that, since most of them come from wealthy backgrounds, having diversity in terms of class background would reduce their and their friends chances of getting a job in academia. There are far too many professors who come from wealthy backgrounds and who imagine they are friends to the poor. They aren't.

Re: Plato. Yes, he believed in a ruling elite, but they were supposed to live in poverty. The elites had power, but not wealth. The non-elites could have wealth, but never power.

Communists
Mike R said:

"None of today’s communists support the Democrats."

Mike, read the Communist Goals here:

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

You'll note how many (about 70% or more) are already succeeding and are in alignment with the Democrats agendas.

MikeR writes:
MikeR writes:

Old man, your quotes could have come straight from the pamphlet I received in grammar school. Written by J. Edgar himself, it spelled out how the commies were going to take over. If my daddy were still alive, I’d send him to your house with his special gun to take care of those monsters under your bed.
=============================

Send him over, I probably would have like him. Notice, I only included the goals they have succeeded in fulfilling and it wasn't communists that gained those goals, but rather, the more "timid" socialists. There goals for the most part are all clearly presented on their web sites so at least they don't hide what they are up to.

And since much of the voting population supports them, isn't the founder's intent of the "will of the people" and Washington and Jefferson's insistance the "majority shall prevail," being carried out? Remember that the Supreme Court Justices, just like "King George" are impeachable if "we the people" scream loud enough to our Representatives in Congress.

I have not only heard that scream very loudly (only about 20% of the voters are conservative, the rest are Republicans but not conservative and even with Conservatives are only about 37% of the U.S. voting population as are Democrats with 26% not in either party) for either Bush or the Justices, but many seem to like the Court rulings.

Socialism has good intentions. Socialist have good intentions. Whether socialism works or not is immaterial. If that is what the people want, our founders provided a way for them to have it. However, it wasn't supposed to be through the Courts but through Constitutional amendment in state Constitutions and the U.S. Constitution if it was a federal power.

Well, there's a silver lining
after all:

"So many people with children are leaving these bastions of liberal Democratic environmentalists as to force many schools in these counties to close."

Seeing as how California has some of the most left-leaning schools in the country, this can only be a good thing. Also, since lefties seldom reproduce, maybe we'll see a reduction in their electoral votes.

Socialist ruling class
Even in "hard line communism" where everything was owned by the state, the ruling class had "wealth's benefits."

I was the higher in the party that you got that gave you "wealth," not work. The higher you got the more you got to use state owned luxury resorts, yatchs, caviar, parties, expensive wines, cars, large homes with security and servants, etc. The Party determines who gets what in France too. The socialists that actually control much of what goes on, get the government contracts, just like here some say, and they get the weealth they can put in Swiss bank accounts, have luxury homes on the Riviera but probably owned by a "company" or foundation, etc.

Socialist protect their wealth too. Look at Kerry's 12% tax rate which is legal, and actually encouraged because we want people to buy our debt so we make the interest on those bonds tax free. We have 17,000 pages of loopholes and rulings most under democratic congresses to protect wealth or encourage investment. Subsidies are a form of encouragement by the government to do things "the government" thinks is in our nation's best interest.

You can't tax the wealthy more than they think is fair or they will do what they are doing in France, leave. The democrats know this but tell the American voter they will "tax the top 2%" and yet they know they can only do it until the wealthy move or move their wealth into tax shelters. That usually happens in 2 to 3 years from a tax increase since liquidating some things takes awhile or moving them overseas requires start ups and new factories, etc.

The companies that don't have to compete just keep passing the cost on to us so they make as much as they did before after taxes. So, either way, the workers pay the tax bill. They pay it either directly or in the hidden taxes AND the compliance cost to collect it from us through business, in the prices we pay.

What do consumers do then? They buy less American and more foreign if it is available or just see their buying power decrease if the company doesn't have to compete, like a auto repair shop. Have you noticed what the hourly rates are in shops that repair cars now?

Unless you do reform like Ireland and some others in new Europe are doing, workers will continue to lose no matter how much Democrats tell you they are "taxing business and the wealthy." You can't tax them because they pass it on to us and then we have to pay for collecting it from them in compliance costs.

All people, including the wealthy pay taxes and should but it should be one rate or two at the most that aren't very far apart. Ireland actually gets away with more since the "income" tax is higher than "investment" returns because they wanted the wealthy to invest more in business to create jobs and labor shortages that would raise worker's wages. Thus their workers wages went up 325% to our 60% increase over the same time period while at the same time tax revenues rose and debt decreased.

Neither party can do that though because the voters aren't going to let them.

Affordable housing
My daughter is sales manager for a company that sells new homes for developers. The developers in some areas are required to made a certain number of homes in their community "affordable." These are actually very difficult to sell because of the restrictions on buyers' qualifications, the fact that buyers who do qualify usually can't afford the costs of living in this community, and because the houses can only be resold as "affordable", which means that there is no appreciation.
I recall seeing an article in a Honolulu newspaper some years ago about the "affordable housing" requirements there--which made the rest of the builder's project cost more and often made it impossible. This meant that the well-meaning attempt to make housing more available actually made less housing available.

Only the calendar changes
Liberalism is merely a form of partial-socialism; a kind of socialism-lite.

The difference between what liberals are advocating, and the textbook definition of socialism, is that while they believe there needs to be government control of all major aspects of our economy and society, as well as a redistribution of wealth, they, as with Plato's elite ruling class, are inherently suited by birth, intellect, and a worthier social conscience, to rule & govern the unwashed masses of the proletariat.

Of course, as with the monarchies and czars of old, as a ruling class favored by gods and fate, there is an entitlement to recompense, for their services to the less chosen. To the liberal, it is only just that privilege should be held from the enactment of laws that would confiscation THEIR wealth or impinge upon THEIR liberties.

Consequently, articles and editorials by authors, such as Dr. Sowell and James Hirsen, describing the depths of hypocrisy shown by celebrities, the monied, the glitterati, and the intellectualoids of our society, should be neither surprising nor unexpected.

My heartbreak "Left" in San Francisco.
Oh, Dr. Sowell, if you should happen to run across my 28 year old daughter, who left our home for San Francisco ten years ago, would please take her across your knee and give her the spanking I failed to give her 20 years ago?

My words and your words didn't "do it." She is now "left" of Karl Marx, along with all of her friends. Maybe I should stop sending the check.

What a joke this generation I spawned. My fault, or the televison's, or something.

lwaysquestion writes:
but poor Lee Iacocca, and Harley-Davidson, it's perfectly alright to give those incompetent leeches welfare handouts. Why aren't conservatives more honest with themselves and admit that their so called conservative politicians are not for the free market at all,
=======================================

The democrats in Michigan and other states that depend on "jobs" by Chrysler, GM, Ford, Harly Davidson, etc. hollered the loudest for government to "keep our jobs" here.

The majority of Republicans probably would let those companies go under if "we the people" don't holler we need the jobs.

Most of the 17,000 pages of tax code and rulings that drive compliance costs and our prices up so high are because "we the people" demand our states representatives in Congress, "Do something."

The result" We approve of Congress by about what? 27%. Yet, the same people polled say their own state representatives are doing a good job by 60% or more than double what they think of Congress in general.

In other words, let the companies in the other states close, but keep ours. Let the people in the other state lose their pork but keep ours.

I happen to agree with free trade. By the way, Hong Kong is ranked number one in Free Trade.

However, how do you get the politicians in both parties to change what they are doing with the people who elect them don't want those changes except in the "other states?"

Please visit
Please visit my Blog by clicking my name

Finally!
Dr. Sowell and many posters see the obvious (to me, anyway) relationship between Marx/Engels' Socialist ideology and the Socialist-Democrat Party (formerly the Democratic Party).

Bravo to Derick regarding "Animal Farm" and the eventual hypocrisy of the pigs. That novel should be required reading.

Last I heard, there were more millionaire Socialist-Democrats in congress than Republican millionaires.

I remember a few years ago when some "environmentalists" were attending a rally to "save the earth" by doing away with SUV's. When the rally ended, they loaded up their stuff in a Chevy Suburban. When a reporter called them on it, they answered, "Well, we have a lot of stuff to haul around," implying that no one else needed to haul "stuff" around.

Uncle Max
See Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged.

All this criticism of the left,
but it's not the left that is destroying Capitalism, what is destroying Capitalism are it's so called defenders! Take that powerlusting little phony, Alan Greenspan, in the early eighties when Ronald Reagan was seriously considering putting the US dollar back on a gold standard, it was Greenspan with Milton Freedman at his side that persuaded Reagan not to do it. Monetarism according to those dastardly powerlusters could control inflation. This from Greenspan, once a protege of Ayn Rand! And who does this phony Greenspan blame for the dot-com bubble, the housing bubble? Irrational exuberance! Irrational exuberance my glutemus maximus! How about all that legal counterfeit you create at the Fed, money out of thin air, being pumped into Wall Street, Greenspan, that has nothing to do with all the bubbles YOU created, Mr. Greenspan?! Irrational exuberance! This from a man fully versed in the quantity theory of money, fully understanding the virtues of a true 100% gold standard, thoroughly familiar with the work of Ludwig von Mises!

And how about all the conservative talk of how welfare destroys the poor, the black, and the family, all of which with I agree, but poor Lee Iacocca, and Harley-Davidson, it's perfectly alright to give those incompetent leeches welfare handouts. Why aren't conservatives more honest with themselves and admit that their so called conservative politicians are not for the free market at all, they are Mercantilists, they are coorporate welfare statists, posing as free market advocates. Is it any surprise that ordinary americans unfamiliar with the difference between the free market and Capitalism, and Mercantalism and the coorporate welfare state, blame Capitalism and the free market for the sins of the Mercantalists and coorporate welfare statists and the Monetarists POSING as free marketers and advocates of Capitalism ?! Is it any wonder ordinary Americans simply feel confused and shafted from the left as well as the right ?!


Actually
Marion, I said some measures are draconian because they are cruel and sever. On the other hand, I like the law that prevents the house next to mine from being turned into a porn shop. We need balance and control.

Beowulfe, it might be only a minor difference to you, but those people are Socialists, not communists. There is a very big difference but not if the term is being used for defamation as I suggested. Otherwise, I am rather well informed. I know of the history of socialism in America as well as the organizations you mentioned. They have been here at one level or another for more than 100 years. We just celebrated their big holiday. In some ways, anyone who gets weekends and holidays off or collects overtime is reaping the benefits of socialism. When they get too big or go too far, they need to be pushed back down. When enough people feel they are getting pushed around by business interest, they gain strength. It’s all checks and balances. Socialism will probably always be around, but it will never take over this country or the world.

Old man, your quotes could have come straight from the pamphlet I received in grammar school. Written by J. Edgar himself, it spelled out how the commies were going to take over. If my daddy were still alive, I’d send him to your house with his special gun to take care of those monsters under your bed.

Profblog
I agree that one more Bush appointment could well be the greatest long term benefit to come of his Presidency. That's why it's so important to vote Republican even if they have strayed on spending and the border. While much has been written and said about the 2 years of bogus impeachment proceedings that would inevitably result from a Democrat takeover of the House, less has been said about the disturbing prospect of little Shmucky Schumer taking over as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Thomas Sowell is right, of course
I'm a lower enlisted military member currently stationed at the Presidio of Monterey, in (you guessed it!) Monterey, California. Let me tell you, he's not kidding about the cost of living here. I have a three bedroom house on the former Fort Ord, which costs me MORE than what I make per month after taxes (before tax earnings for an E-3: $1501.20, after--for me married, 2 exemptions, NC state withholding, Socialist Security, Medicare--$1255.94, knock off another couple hundred for necessary things like life insurance, savings, retirement, charity). The military pays an allowance for housing which is adjusted based on the area in which you live, and the BAH for someone of my rank with dependents is $1397.00 per month. The housing here is military, and therefore $1397.00 per month is considered a deal and a half here--and the housing management company definitely confiscates 100% of it before it ever gets to my bank account. I think it says something when your housing allowance is 111% of your take-home pay. And we're doing better than the average, since I'm only spending 55% of my income for housing, rather than 60%. Of course, the vast majority of the residents of this county don't have the advantage of cheap military housing (comes complete with asbestos, AND a gas range!), so I can barely imagine how a 23 year old and his 20 year old wife would survive here without being in my (comparatively decent) situation. A quick search for apartments in the area shows that the going rate for a three bedroom apartment is between $2100-$2500 per month. And can you imagine spending $490,000 for a 1000 square foot house? For $490,000, that little house had better come with a free Lamborghini and a little guy to follow me around and play my theme song everytime I go somewhere ("Slow Ride" by Foghat, or maybe the Benny Hill theme). I think my wife and I are truly blessed to have been able to live here the past two years, and relatively cheaply, but let me tell you--it ain't cheap, everyone drives a more expensive car than you (and 10 under the speed limit), and you'd damned well better insure yourself to the hilt, because if you don't hit an expensive car, you're going to be hit by the other element--the ones that don't carry any insurance at all. You know the ones I'm talking about.

Anyway, I should probably make some kind of a point in this rambling rant. Not only do the laws forbid building anything anywhere (I guess similar to how Ted Kennedy doesn't want a wind farm outside his window or something), but you can't knock down any buildings over five minutes old either, because they're "historic." Up on the post we've got a load of ugly old "historic" buildings that are just begging to be knocked down and replaced with modern facilities. The world's premier language school is here, after all, and that's IMPORTANT. I spent a year and a half learning a language in a tiny room in a 50 year old building, and let me tell you that it doesn't matter how much you like someone--being elbow to elbow while you're being stressfully rushed into learning a language ten times faster than anyone else frays tempers and destroys productivity. But that's another rant. I suggest you come for the golf courses, stay for the seafood, pay a military guy's check at the restaurant, tell him his wife's pretty, and vote for the guy who's less Socialist.

Hugs and kisses.

John

voters are the problem
When you have voters with no education of the issues or a one-sided education or voters who think it isn't their job to know the issues, just vote the party line, then you have the correct target.

For the most part, politicians in both parties are doing the "will of the people." What people? The ones that show up at the monthly district meetings, that show up for primary races to get rid of Repbulicans and Democrats that don't reflect the "majority." Thus the politician ends up listening to those that do show up.

Who shows up?

The ones with an agenda that they are willing to fight for. Who is that currently in most states? Socialists. So, who do the politicians hear?

Then add the media, schools, and entertainment. What message do they hear from those sources. Why do they listen to them? Because they make big bucks off us and use those bucks to fund campaigns. Remember the goals given on the Floor of Congress by the Rep from Florida

quote:
15. Capture one, or both, of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
===========================

However, socialists (The socialist party has the same goals but uses Courts and democracy to make changes)were smart. When this speech was made and even before, they saw that a low profile approach was needed. From their own Website, we find:

Quote:
While a minority, we fight for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. When a majority we will rapidly introduce those changes which constitute socialism, with priority to the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workers' control.
http://www.sp-usa.org/about/principles.html
====================================

They may not be communists but they are just as dangerous. If you don't believe it, look no further than France.

Gate keepers
The barometer for what storms are coming is the Supreme Court. Kelo signalled a hurricane. A simple 5-4 decision sold the farm. Praying people can believe for one to two more appointments during Bush's final two years. Additionally, keeping a majority in both houses will help with being able to choose faithful gate keepers. Justice Thomas noted the importance of a simple changing of wording in the eminent domain amendment "public use" to "public purpose" and the consequences that would ensue.

Mr. Sowell rightly shines the light on the process used by those "caring" people who watch out for our corporate good, even extending their benevolence to all nature and the good creatures, taking whatever private land is needed. However, because of the arduous nature of their constant vigil, they must, of course, have access to the best food, housing, etc. so as to ensure that they may continue their lonely, often misunderstood calling. Surely we can understand that they need the house while we get the barn. But, they do feel our pain.

Many of my students last Fall did not understand Animal Farm very well. They often expressed confidence in the many laws that are meant "for our own good." Luckily, not many of them vote.

Sooner
You are correct that a careful reading of Robin Hood reveals that he was fighting the looters. Unfortunately, the message of Robin Hood has been bastardized to "take from the rich (productive) and give to the poor (non-productive)"

Of course, today's liberals always mean the taking to come from someone else, not them. Fools that vote them into office believe that they will be on the receiving end of the spoils, and are surprised to find themselves on the wrong end of the gun.

The example of wacko environmentalists is a good one. How often do we see liberals fly in on private jets, then ride in stretch limos to lecture the rest of us on the evils of SUV's?

Robin Hood
The Robin Hood story needs to be told correctly. Robin Hood robbed from the government to give it to the citizens who were ALL poor (high taxes caused the government to be rich only compared to the citizens...who actually had almost nothing to tax anyway).

Hey folks
Doesn't the first part of this article describe our members of Congress? They have a special way of greeting and speaking to one another, think 'my esteemed colleague' when they address one another. They have special priveleges; a special bank just for themselves, they don't have to obey some of the same laws they pass for everyone else, they get paid for life after just a few years in office, and no matter how the economy is going they are able to vote themselves a raise.

That sounds a lot like the old nomenklatura to me!

Artificially Forcing Wages
This is no different than forcing companies like Wal-Mart to artificially raise their pay and impose health care on. It is great for those already working there, but for those who want to seek entry-level jobs, it turns into almost impossible causing even more poverty.

These people who don't trust the market for everyone else make rules for those, then exempt themselves from those rules they impose. Shame!

What's In a Name

I don’t know where I heard it, but people who talk like Robin Hood, “Steal from the rich, and give to the poor, yada, yada, yada…” end-up governing like the Sheriff of Nottingham.

I don’t care what they call themselves or each other – progressives, liberals, socialists, communists, leftists, neo-cons, democrats, republicans, moderates, fascists; I hold anyone who abridges private property rights, with deep suspicion.

Perhaps, the former Democratic VP candidate, John Edwards, was correct in saying there are two Americas; but not in the sense he meant. The two Americas are comprised of those who govern (or seek to govern) on the one hand, and the rest of us.



MikeR
You are dearly misinformed:

http://bernie.house.gov/website/leavesite.asp?url=http://cpc.lee.house.gov/

This is the home page for the Congressional Progressive Caucus. When Nancy Pelosi became House Minority Leader, several articles were written detailing exactly what this organization is because she was a ranking member (who has since terminated her membership because she was taking such heavy heat).

It turns out that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is an all-congressman sub-group of an organization known as the Democratic Socialists of America, which is the American branch of the largest international socialist organization in the world: Socialist Internationale.

There are currently 61 Democratic congressmen who are members of this communist affiliated organization.

In other words, it is a lot more than just "a few extremists on the left" who are pushing a communist agenda.

Funny how the leftists work.
Leftists LOVE to claim that those on the other side are the rich racists who hate the poor.

Why, then, is it a fact that the more 'liberal' a community is, the more it costs to live there and the fewer blacks that live there?

Check Census Bureau data for yourself. You'll find interesting facts like while the average "red state" has a population of which around 20% or more is black, the average "blue state" has less than a 5% black population.

Here in some areas of Massachusetts, where I live, "affordable housing" is any house that costs less than $300,000, mostly because the restrictions placed on land development by those oh-so-caring leftists.

Oh, sure, leftists "love" minorities and the poor...as long as they're living someplace else.

Sorry Mike
But I live in Wyoming where private land is targeted with "endangered species". Ranchers are unable to protect their animals unless the wolf is actually in the process of killing. Chasing, and trying to run it down doesn't count. I guess the wolves are just having fun if they are trying to catch a calf or a sheep.
Then you have the Preble mouse which is used to force wheat farmers to leave their own land non productive in order to protect it, and of course it goes without saying that no one can develop their own land for housing.
Believe me private property is most definitely a target.

Sorry Mike
But I live in Wyoming where private land is targeted with "endangered species". Ranchers are unable to protect their animals unless the wolf is actually in the process of killing. Chasing, and trying to run it down doesn't count. I guess the wolves are just having fun if they are trying to catch a calf or a sheep.
Then you have the Preble mouse which is used to force wheat farmers to leave their own land non productive in order to protect it, and of course it goes without saying that no one can develop their own land for housing.
Believe me private property is most definitely a target.

question
Who is John Galt?

Yo Mike
While you may see no monsters under your bed, ask immigrants here from formerly socialist countries about increasing governmental regulation here and they will tell you we are becoming the country they left. I for one do not want that.

here we go again
Communism doesn’t work. It was a bad idea to start with and of course, it was made even worse by the greed and lust for power of men. That being said, only a few extremists on the left want the elimination of personal property. None of today’s communists support the Democrats. They believe them to also be tools of the corporate establishment. In a never ending effort to demonize the left, the communist card is played and played out. If the same was applied to the right, then we would be accused of wanting to send children into the mines to pick coal, of chaining workers to their desks and machines and denying education to any who can’t afford it. Which brings us back to Sowell’s comments. While some are certainly draconian in nature, many land use measures are necessary. The difficult part is in achieving a balance. I remember all too well when commies were hiding in my closet and under my bed. Manuals taught us how to be suspicious of strangers and spy on neighbors. As I grew up, I realized that there were no monsters under my bed or in my closet.

What is really interesting...
about all of this is the very effective way those on the Left can innoculate themselves against the revelation of truths such as these. If the black population of a city in the deep South was declining in absolute numbers while the overall population was increasing, there would be a political firestorm of enormous proportions. The fact that it is happening in bastions of the elite Left such as S.F. doesn't produce so much as a small yawn from the MSM. This from those whose justification for race-based political initiatives is even the appearance of inequality.

Infinite Hypocrisy from The Left
Just look at the left-wing nutcase in Mexico who lost the election but is really a dictator in training. He says he's for the little guy, but he's just trying to grab power for himself and his cronies so that he can create his own nomenklatura in Mexico. It never ends...

Nailed again
I have long thought this attitude was a lot of the push behind the endangered speicies (most of which are not) act. The elitists cannot stand the thought of all of those redneck cowboys having all of that land, and all of those cattle, so they are going to do everything possible to get rid of them.

Hence the hatred of Wal Mart
The nomenklatura hate Wal Mart for the same reason -- because Wal-Mart allows the proletariat (that would be us) to have nice things that look like the nice things the nomenklatura have, and live in comfort approximating that of their 'betters'. It is in the best interest of the Ruling Elite to keep the proles not only poor but downtrodden, and if they don't LOOK downtrodden, how are they going to be exploited as such? In order for the Elite to be Elite, the rest of us have to be Not Elite.

In the old days people who were jumped-up shack trash were called Mushrooms. A lot of these so-called nomenklatura are exactly that -- and to keep hold on their appearance of Betterness, they have to make sure there are plenty of Poor and Downtrodden to contrast themselves by.

As Dorothy Parker observed once, though, "A goosegirl in ermine is a goosegirl still, and geese will gabble everywhere she goes."

Liberals follow the same blueprint
Having studied the Bolshevik revolution at length, I am constantly dismayed at the number of similarities between the liberal movement in this country and the Leninists during their revolutionary struggle. From controlling the press, to controlling the meaning of words, to controlling education, to the destruction of families (extolling the virtues of daycare, making divorce easier than buying a BB gun, gay marriage), to removing the influence of religion wherever possible, to controlling the economy for their own benefit. Unfortunately, a lot of people are bedazzled by the utopian vision and vote for them. Then they discover the same thing we discovered about Lenin. It is much easier to be foment revolution than run a government. Just as Liberal Democrats are so much better at campaigning and framing the debate than they are at governing. I still run across folks (far too many of them being college professors) who think that communism would work if it was done right. The only problem with their argument is that there is no way to do communism right. We have seen just exactly how communism works in the Soviet Union, in the Balkan countries, in Cuba, in Red China, in Southeast Asia. Those examples are as good as it gets. Dr. Sowell's example of land in MOnterey County is just another example of what happens when any group of people gets to infringe on the private property rights of others. Some of the college professors I know have carefully explained to me that the problem with the United States is that the whole system of laws, starting with the Hebrew laws and the Ten Commandments on which so much of our original Constitution was based, is that it holds property rights above all. Of course, that is a faulty premise. Private property and the ability to be secure in our property and possessions is the solution, not the problem.

The "money quote"
Dr. Sowell hits the nail squarely on the head with this line: "who wrap their own selfishness in the mantle of idealism".
For years, I have said this is exactly the modus operendi of the Liberal, every thing they do in the name of helping others can always be traced back to a need for themselves to be taken care of. It is also an attempt to have what others have, yet not actually do the work needed to earn it. Or once they have it (usually by inheritance or other unearned acquisition), to make darn sure no one else has the chance to earn it and join their net worth level.

This column also makes some of the same points as Orwell did in "Animal Farm". "Some are more equal than others". What wisdom in a simple allegory....

Leaving Havoc?
It sounds like they are leaving nothing in their wake. Which is worse, IMO.

Some people just HAVE to be more equal
than anyone else. It's their RIGHT, or so they believe.

But I can probably give a few other reasons for the families leaving San Francisco. First the drug culture, then the homosexual culture, finally the NO culture (as in no guns, no defense, and no law too stupid not to be passed.)

And Dr Sowell didn't even say a word about the nomenklatura's private dachaus! (villas)
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.