Psychoanalyzing the loony left

Burt Prelutsky
|
Posted: Jun 06, 2006 12:05 PM

Sigmund Freud was the fellow who had the copyright on the ego, the id and the superego.  He was also the guy who managed to turn the couch, formerly just another piece of over-stuffed Viennese furniture, into a legitimate business expense.  But even he acknowledged that he was unable to decipher what it was that women wanted.

Strangely enough, that happens to be one question to which I actually know the answer.  Women want men to be manly chaps, strong and virile, while at the same time they want us to be completely open and in touch with our emotions.  Furthermore, they want us to be more interested in what they think, say and feel than we are in cars, sports and beer.  In short, they want the impossible.  The more reasonable amongst them will settle for our picking up after ourselves.

The thing that has me stumped is trying to figure out what leftists want.  For example, when left-wing judges take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench, liberals are quick to say that the Constitution is a living document and that it has to evolve to accommodate a changing world.  However, whenever a conservative suggests that the 14th amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to any person born in America, ought to be changed in order to deny that gift to those born to illegal aliens, those same people carry on as if the Constitution, like the 10 Commandments, was carved in stone.

But, really, we have no reason to believe that the Founding Fathers, who fought a war in order to gain sovereignty for this nation, wouldn’t have entertained second thoughts if they’d ever envisioned a foreign invasion numbering in the millions.  I mean, it’s a basic tenet of the law that nobody is entitled to profit from a crime.  To suggest that the child, the beneficiary of his parents’ illegal act, doesn’t profit is patently absurd.  To argue that he shouldn’t be deprived of the advantage because he didn’t break the law is ridiculous.  You might as well suggest that if a bank robber gives his ill-gotten gains to his wife and kids, the family should get to keep the loot because, after all, they weren’t the ones who drove the getaway car.

Another thing about liberals I can’t begin to figure out is their abiding devotion to failed economic theories.  The fact that communism hasn’t worked anywhere in the world doesn’t cool their ardor in the slightest.  The fact that Marx’s brainstorm invariably metastasizes into a despotic tyranny—be it in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia or Venezuela—doesn’t make the slightest impression on them.  Neither does the fact that socialism has brought much of Europe to the brink of moral and financial bankruptcy faze them in the least.

In our own country, the most obvious failure of socialism is social security, the single largest pyramid scheme ever conceived by the mind of man.  When Ponzi did it he went to jail for fraud; when Roosevelt pulled it off he was hailed as a savior.  As someone or other once observed, if you’re going to steal, steal big.

So why is it that leftists continue to promote these half-cocked alternatives to capitalism, the only economic program that’s ever motivated people to aspire, to compete, to achieve and to innovate?

Well, I hate to be impolite, but when people keep doing the same thing in spite of getting the same rotten results, we have been told by experts in the field that it’s a pretty sure sign of insanity.

And just in case any doubt remains, you merely have to look to those who speak on their behalf.  Assuming you’re not a cuckoo yourself, can you possibly imagine rallying around the unappetizing likes of Gore and Kerry, Schumer and Durbin, Kennedy and Rangel, Leahy and Biden, Byrd and Boxer, Sharpton and Jackson, McKinney and Waters, Al Franken and Michael Moore, George Soros and Norman Lear, Hillary and Bill, and Jimmy Carter?

Or merely consider the man the liberals selected to be their party’s leader, the man they chose to carry their banner into battle.  While most people will always associate Howard Dean with his primary election meltdown, I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt.  After all, in the heat of a presidential campaign—especially a campaign in which he had somehow managed to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory—people are given to saying, or, in Dean’s case, shrieking some very odd things.

Instead, my clearest, most lasting memory of the party boss will forever be his calm and collected response to someone’s asking what the Democratic candidates should be saying in the upcoming elections.  Replied Mr. Dean: “My three-word message is, we can do better.”