« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Now we get liberalism “until it comes out of our nostrils”

Moses meets politics

Using analogies is always risky, as they often fall apart under scrutiny. But in this case, I’ll take the risk. And it’s Sunday, so the Biblical reference is apropos.

In the Old Testament, Moses wrote of the trials of the Israelites as they wandered the desert during their forty years of exile. During this period, the LORD provided the Israelites with manna (“manna from heaven”) to eat. Every night manna appeared on the ground, and the Israelites would gather it and cook it for their food…that was pretty much all they had:

The manna was like coriander seed and looked like resin. The people went around gathering it, and then ground it in a handmill or crushed it in a mortar. They cooked it in a pot or made it into cakes. And it tasted like something made with olive oil. When the dew settled on the camp at night, the manna also came down.(Num 11:7-8)

Eventually the Israelites tired of the manna and complained to Moses about having to eat manna every day (the Israelites complained about a lot of things during those years) and looked back to the “good ol’ days” in Egypt where they didn’t have to eat manna. Rather than manna, the Israelites wanted meat. Moses took their complaints to the LORD, and He responded.

“Tell the people: ‘Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, when you will eat meat. The LORD heard you when you wailed, “If only we had meat to eat! We were better off in Egypt!” Now the LORD will give you meat, and you will eat it. You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, but for a whole month – until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it – because you have rejected the LORD, who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, “Why did we ever leave Egypt?” ‘ ” (Num 11:18-20)

So what does this have to do with anything RedState-ish?


Based upon the results of the 2008 election, it appears that a (somewhat thin) majority of the Israelites American people have forgotten that much of the last eight years (at least until the past six months) has been fairly positive, but they are now clamoring for meat liberalism. I was struck with this parallel when I read an article by Thomas Frank titled “It’s Time to Give Voters the Liberalism They Want“. Really? I think perhaps that was pretty much what God thought about the Israelites.

Frank opines that voters have clearly stated that they really DO want liberalism, in the form of easier formation of labor unions (the main thrust of his article), “universal” health care, and wealth redistribution:

But it is also possible that, for once, the public weighed the big issues and gave a clear verdict on the great economic questions of the last few decades. It is likely that we really do want universal health care and some measure of wealth-spreading, and even would like to see it become easier to organize a union in the workplace, however misguided such ideas may seem to the nation’s institutions of higher carping.

Behind this speculation is a larger question of whether the United States has become a “center-left” nation, or if we still, as some conservative/GOP commentators have stated, remain center-right. This question has been discussed in many articles recently, and is probably one for an entirely seperate diary. An interesting assessment of this question, by Tod Lindberg, appeared in the WaPo last Sunday, and his conclusion was that we are no longer a center-right country. He says:

And so far, center-left government is largely an abstraction for the country. People like the sound of it, especially against the backdrop of a financial crisis and recession. In these center-left times, voters are receptive — or rather, it is their receptiveness that makes these times center-left. But whether they will like the new Obama tilt in practice remains to be seen.

If we are, as folks like Karl Rove insist, still center-right, then the voters have made a serious error in judgement in their rush to wipe out “eight years of failed Bush policy” (in the words of our Dear Leader-Elect). In fact, it appears that we may not be “center-anything”…the nation has become more polarized than ever, and the election of a President who is so blatantly far-left will be an interesting exercise in finding the real answer. In Frank’s article, he quotes Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern regarding this shift:

What is coming, they believe, is not triangulation redux. This was, SEIU President Andy Stern told me, “a clear election not on small things.” Mr. Obama “talked about what people wanted to hear about,” as opposed to the culture wars. “We’ve redefined the center,” Mr. Stern said. “Universal health care is now centrist.”

Hmmm. “We’ve redefined the center.” Not so sure about that. That may happen yet, but the endpoint of the redefinition may not happen until the American people discover first-hand what a left-wing socialist country is truly like…there may be a temporary lurch left, at least until Obama’s Leftist paradise becomes Paradise Lost. Until this occurs, though, America will get what they asked for – liberalism. And probably lots of it, at least in domestic policy. The public complained about the manna and now they want meat. So meat, aka liberalism, is what we will get.

Oh, and what happened to the Israelites after the LORD provided their meat?

But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague. Therefore the place was named Kibroth Hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had craved other food. (Num 11:33-34)

Interesting.

COMMENTS

  • mscout99

    How can we be “center-Left” if Obama ran as a moderate, even a Republican on some issues during the election?
    I really, honestly believe that a lot of Americans that voted for this guy were duped by a great marketing campaign. He ran as far left as a socialist in the primaries, then campaigned pretty much Republican in the general election.
    The country will reap what it sows. All of the “hope and change” he preached to us about will all be about socialism shortly after he takes office.

  • kyle8

    Things like nationalized health care, and other socialist schemes actually work pretty well for the first five to ten years.

    It takes a while before the pain and ruin set in. That is the problem. Then by that time people are used to it, and do not want to go back. Instead they call for government to “fix it”, which means even more socialism.

  • Spiral

    Kyle,

    You have to wonder though.

    If socialism is so darned popular, why has it taken so long for the United States to adopt all of it, instead of just bits and pieces of it (rather substantial amounts of it admittedly)?

    Harry Truman wanted to enact national health care.

    So did Lyndon Johnson. So did Jimmy Carter. So did Bill Clinton.

    If it’s so friggin’ popular, you’d think that might have done it already.

    Take the Wagner Act as well. Pass in 1935 during FDR’s peak of popularity, you would have thought at the time that this meant the United States workforce would become about 70 percent unionized or more than that.

    But the US has one of the least unionized workforces in the world. And most unionized workers in the US today are government employees (mostly teachers and nurses).

    I’m not trying to completely talk you out of your pessimism since I share quite a lot of it.

    But, again, if socialism is so danged popular, why did the Berlin Wall collapse without a shot being fired?

  • itrytobenice

    I didn’t know that crap would literally come out your nose, but apparently it also kinda stretches it out and makes it look like a snout.

  • USNJIMRET

    Quit assuming that people who voted for Obama had a clue what they were voting into power.
    Andy Smith got it absolutely correct. A heck of a lot of people were duped by an excellent marketing campaign.
    What remains to be seen is who is really pulling the strings.
    “Shadow Government” takes on a whole new meaning, In my opinion.

  • rbdwiggins

    Those Obama voters who let their emotions override rational thought, or refused to accept the factual analysis laid before them and chose instead to substitute their own set of KnownFacts™ (which remain completely disconnected from reality), will get the government they so rightly deserve.

    Unfortunately, the rest of us will be forced to mitigate the damage done to our constitutional republic by what will surely be an Obama Administration that is defined by an unbroken string of missteps, unintended consequences and complete failures.

  • ss396

    There are a couple things that (used to) set the US apart of other, supposedly comparable nations.

    Firstly, is the notion of equal opportunity. The US has never been caste- or class-driven; as a national people we never directly experienced an aristocratic monarchy. This not only allowed the individual to identify himself or herself, it demanded it. Thus the unleashing of heretofore constrained visions and opportunities. This is also why slavery was such a hideous contradiction to the very spirit of this nation; even the indentured servant could have a hope of release that the slave could not. Little wonder it tore the national fabric!

    But as we polarize ourselves and settle into our classes, we become defensive about them, and jealous of incursions to our turf. It is so much easier to allow yourself to be defined by circumstance and happenstance than it is to stake out and defend your own individuality. With a smaller, weaker central government that option was not available. The larger government intrudes, robs initiative, and renders opportunity pass?. If your existence is guaranteed, what is your incentive?

    The second reason that the US has not become as socialized as much else of the world is because of an educated population. One of the striking things during the Soviet adventurism during the 50s, 60s, and 70s was the appeal of the communist doctrine among the peasantry in many other countries. Contrast that to the US farmer – who were the staunchest anti-communists in our country! What made the difference? The only thing that I could ever come up with was that we had an educated general population. I’ve worked with many other nationalities, and have seen the difference between an elitist education model (them) vs. a populist education model (us). As an example, I found British engineers were impressive in the depth of the subject knowledge; but they knew very little outside of their specialty. The US engineers were not as deeply instructed, but had a broader knowledge. US engineers could think in terms of systems; British engineers could think in terms of applications.

    This shows why the US has typically been more inventive, and more innovative than, say, our European counterparts. Comparing US test scores to European ones is not apples-to-apples. Many of the citizenry in Europe is not afforded the education opportunities that are given to US citizens. As an example of that result, here in the US look at SAT scores mapped against percent participation: it is (and has long been known as) a very clear inverse relationship: the fewer who took the testing, the better the result. That is what you really see when you compare US test scores against European: you see the result of elitist vs. populist educational policy outcomes.

    Because we think in terms of systems, we see the implications of policies better, and have (for example) resisted socialism more successfully as a result. This is also why I hate to see national education policies in the US, and especially when they tell us that we must specialize in math and science better. Doing so will surrender a key component to the American character. I want the populist; you can always buy the elitist.

    Our turn toward the liberalism is perhaps inevitable because we are a democracy. We used to be a republic, but that argument is seldom voiced any more these days. We can and do vote ourselves the government largess; I see that is consistent to human nature, and therefore it is likely unstoppable. I see government as having little scope to actually improve things, but an enormous capability to wreck things. By ‘wrecking’ I mean a full subscription to the concept of ‘unintended consequences’: enacting policies intended to be helpful (welfare, corpfare, trade restrictions, wealth redistribution) all done in earnest good will, but unbelievably destructive in practice. And so very, very hard to undo after the fact. Two years of a liberal congress and a compliant President will hamstring us for a long, long time – perhaps indefinitely.

    We’ve resisted the socialist siren call for a long time, but we are now drawn to it because we no longer define ourselves; we look to others to define who we are. So many live vicariously through television heros, blaming genetics for character short-comings, and looking for some outside third party to tell that it is OK to feel this way or that. Goodbye to critical thinking and self-awareness, and welcome to subfusion into the mass.

    I don’t want to end this screed so negatively, because the ideals of the US of A are still intact. But we will need to find another road to achieve them.

  • Old_Crow

    will pump up the markets and economy for a short time. Then we will crash since government cannot spend its way out of a recession (short of a massive war like WWII that reshaped the underlying economy). 2009 will be worse than 2008 and 2010 will be worse than 2009.

  • mikefisk

    Stimulus packages really don’t do anything, as the rational expectations theorists have been saying (and been proven correct) for decades… short-term, one-off stimuli is the stuff of Keynesian economics, which has been about as successful as socialism. Why? People know that they’ve got money coming now, but they can’t count on it to keep coming. So they save it or use it to pay down debts, both of which do absolutely nothing to help the economy in the short-run (although both have small long-term effects).

  • Gekster

    I think Obama won because news media got “tingles up their legs,” when Obama spoke, and just to be part of history, choosing the first black President, the high Priests told us to choose Barabbas over Jesus. “Just an analogy to illustrate a point.”
    Most news media totally went for Obama, reported only good things about Obama, and said anything and everything negative about John McLooser and that wonderful surprise, Sarah Palin.
    And if you remember, the media was all for McLooser during the primaries, and it all changed when McLooser won the Republican nomination.
    When Chris “tingly up my leg,” Mathews stated on television that the media helped elect Obama and he was glad he did his part, and said that they had to help Obama have a successful presidency, “to bad they didn’t say that about Bush,” then any sane man would get it that Obama was chosen by the media, and not the American people.
    If the media did the scrutinizing on Obama like they did on Joe the Plumber and McLooser, then the pick would have been the lesser of two evils. Thats something I’ve heard more than once. We knew more about Joe in two days from the media than we did about Obama in six months.

    It is also a fact that most collage kids are liberal, being taught by liberal professors, and will vote for the liberal candidate, that is until they get a job and have to pay taxes and pay for themselves, with no more money from home.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but true conservatives none of the time. Uncle Ronnie never got fooled by them. I’ll try not to either.

  • Gekster

    The thing I tried to say and managed not to is that Americans didn’t vote for liberalism. They voted for the next top model, the next American Idol, the winner on dancing with the stars.
    Not for liberalism.

  • conservativemusician

    as liberalism is what the American people in their “collective wisdom” voted into office. I still hold out a faint hope that conservatism can triumph if it is ever actually allowed to be on the ballot again. However, with the societal and political changes on the immediate and distant horizon that are surely coming with our newly elected socialist leadership (including the granting of blanket amnesty for illegals), the sheer numbers of voters that the Dems will pick up have the potential to dwarf us to the point that even a massive election turn out on our side may not be enough to turn the tide in the future. I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this, but as we don’t have the type of firebrand conservative leadership that will stand up to the hoarde mentality of our political enemies, the future does not look very bright at this point.

  • sickofitall

    In the form of the latest permutation of the bailout plan and the inevitable giant giveaway to Detroit. I refuse to believe that America is a center right nation; it’s a Conservative nation, which Reagan proved so masterfully. If the MSM hadn’t done so much to derail the true Conservative candidate in the primary then we would have seen the electorate flock to Fred in droves. Right now instead of seeing the president elect stealing from our children to bail out Wall Street we’d be seeing him tell Detroit to break the UAW and telling Citi to bail out their own sinking ship.

  • Gekster

    This could be the firebrand we need and hope for.