Friday, November 29, 2013

The Limit of Progressive Power

Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute pushes at a subject that indicates the problem of the progressives today. Progs can register the voters and underclass to then game the votes for acquiring power. They cannot implement things because the power is directed only at the voting booth. Obamacare was rammed through due to a won election and then arm twisting and pressuring Chief Justice Roberts, but actual implementation by the same group? Hell no. Bunch of screw ups. If the cathedral is powerful because it mold's minds for voting and shapes opinions for voting, then their goal is geared to one vector: political power. They have been optimized to have success molding voters and their only success is with identification with the Democrat brand and winning elections.

A powerful means of progressives power is molding minds through the education system and forcing more and more people into the universities. These schools educate some, but mostly fill the others with third hand versions of original communist theories from the 19th century. Over a decade of progressive propaganda creates an entire bank of age 18-25 voters leaning left. This helps in November. Does it build a civilization? No. The newspapers guide the discourse through a false debate to get to the proper outcome in November. Are all options on the table for any policy move? No. A perfect example was the stimulus of 2009. The only debate was how much spending and what type of spending. No one considered creating a $750 billion tax cut that would step by step return to zero net effect after four or five years. Spending was the only means considered because it would create patronage clients, expand the number of government dependents and reward the coalition of donors. Because their power is to create left leaning voters and create means which will expand their vote, they cannot govern or maintain positive communities.

Creating the national situation where the left has a great starting point for presidential elections involved destroying California through Mexican immigration. It created a secure 50+ electoral votes, but it turned an amazing state into a feudal Latin American country. Somali immigration made Minnesota securely blue but has made the Twin Cities more dysfunctional. It is not just an immigration issue but an economic issue. The left can use their hold on media, education and regulation to destroy the internals of a state to swing it their way for political power. Destroying economic diversity and the livelihoods of middle or lower class individuals hurts a state's well being, but it benefits the left. Regulation can be written to benefit major donors, and it can be written to lean on an industry to bend to your beliefs.

A economic example of such a twist that turned purple states into blue states was the multidecade campaign against the logging and paper industry that turned Oregon and Maine into reliable blue states. Studies and plenty of academic papers have been written on the change in the American forestry industry and some even mention the effect that the decline in logging had on Oregon's politics. What few discuss is how the environmental movement lied about the destruction of America's forests. America's forests have been expanding since the late '40s and stable since 1900. Logging in Maine was on private land, but logging in Oregon was often on federal land. The reliance on federal land logging created court battles and regulation issues that the civil service and federal courts twisted to destroy logging in Oregon. Recall the fight for the spotted owl or the girl who climbed up and camped out in a tree to save a redwood? Federal land. Oregon loggers were out of luck, those employees left the state, whole businesses disappeared, the economic interests that rose were service economy related, and the state drifted left. It is reliably blue even in Republican wave election years. Maine logging was destroyed by propaganda pressure for the corporations to replant trees (as if they did not have land management departments), to end clear cutting and voter referendums were held on the issue. Maine is basically a forest with a few houses thrown near the coast, but voters were persuaded to stop clear cutting. Logging jobs dropped from roughly 50,000 to 17,000 which has a huge effect on a state of roughly 1 million people. This turned the reliably right wing north and eastern parts of the state into welfare using wastelands dependent on tourism and the government. It also destroyed a source of campaign financing that leaned right (still does). Maine is reliably blue now. Possibly related: Brazilian rainforest deforestation has accelerated.

Oregon and Maine are safely blue yet tease the right. Is Maine always fighting to keep their young, smart children from leaving? Yes. Is Oregon a fiscal train wreck with an income tax starting at 5% and jumping to 11%? Yes. These states have been manipulated into drifting left. It gives the left more power, but it does not improve the state. That is the problem with progressives. Every move is taken to secure ties to the state and improve vote counts without a consideration for what will happen. Obamacare could have just blocked off money to pay for high deductible catastrophic policies with insurers in each state, but creating a giant bureaucracy adds to the power as do contracts to dole out to private firms. I joked about this on Twitter, but those progressives who were happy to see the black vote switch to 95% Democrat, secure Pennsylvania and affect others (see the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election), but it was not suppose to end with war zone ghetto neighborhoods, cities resembling Beirut and healthier cities organized in an apartheid manner. Liberals chastise gentrification because it upsets the power structure they have built in the cities. Cities turning into war zones benefits the left due to who remains in the city to vote, and who now controls the machinery for city voting in presidential elections. Everyone who votes counts, but he who counts the votes is more important.

These are all symptoms of the optimization of resources towards securing political power. It does not matter if northern Maine turns into an empty forest of depressed heroin and Oxycontin users. Break the tenuous black family into pieces with enabling welfare, but it gets you more current and future votes. Single moms are reliable voters for more government despite the monsters they raise for tomorrow. It does not matter if cities descend into war zones like Oakland and pre-Giuliani New York. Destroying the livelihood of loggers through lies about the state of America's forests is nothing if it nets you new congressional seats or a whole state. Turning the jewel of America into a dysfunctional Latin American state might be worth it is it means safer presidential elections for Democrats. It is not about good governance or positive policies because their policies are not geared towards a healthy society. That is not the goal. Progressive policy: the policy of securing more votes. Forward!

1 comment:

peterike said...

Well said and all very true. But keep in mind, that while Progressive policies do not, clearly, create a more "healthy society," they definitely create a more healthy job market for Progressives.

When it comes the collapse will feel very sudden, but it's been building up for many a decade.