We all know from watching TV news that the right is violent, angry, and vengeful, while the left is open-minded, peace-loving, and accepting. But one reporter didn’t seem to get the memo, as the liberal confessed he couldn’t wait for the drone assassination of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, so that he could write a piece defending the strike. Perhaps that was Michael Grunwald’s reaction to the praise Assange poured on Ron and Rand Paul as being the last hope for America, or Assange’s statement that the libertarian aspect of the Republican party is the only useful voice in congress. One thing is for certain, that Grunwald has added yet another piece of anecdotal evidence to the argument that liberals can in fact be hateful and intolerant of their political opponents, as the media (which Grunwald is a part of) often claims of conservatives. According to the Daily Caller, the following was tweeted by Michael Grunwald.
Obviously anyone could be hateful and call for the death of what they see as their political enemies, but I don’t like that liberals often get a pass on this one, as if the Tea Party are the militants the media portrays them as, and liberals just want world peace. Wishing for a drone strike to take out Julian Assange, who has alerted the world public to abuses of power by the U.S. government, is not a very tolerant attitude. What people forget about liberals like Grunwald is that for them, the ends justify the means; it doesn’t matter how much evil happens in the pursuit of utopia, because the evil is necessary to bring about good. This of course includes the belief that a utopia can be brought about on earth.
Personally I believe that the Constitution laid out a very good system of government. But often liberals will frame an argument by showing flaws in a system, and claiming to know the solution, while ignoring flaws in the alternative system they put forward. For instance many will criticize capitalism for injustices and inequality which the system allows, without bringing up the fact that capitalism is a means for providing as many people as possible with the food, clothing, and shelter they need. But for the liberals they do not have to put a legitimate solution forward, they just have to point out the weaknesses in the current system. Could there be something better than capitalism? Sure, but until that system is designed and explained logically, I have to believe that capitalism should remain the dominant economic system.
Without realizing it many liberals are in favor of a statist solution, crony capitalism where the government can regulate the economy as opposed to the free market regulating the economy. They want a strong government that will eliminate criminals so that no one is victimized, and never make a false arrest. But in their arguments for a strong centralized big government, they use the best case scenario. They argue as if every member of the government will be moral and competent. They argue as if it would be impossible for some evil sociopath to come to power and fulfill his ulterior motives. It becomes not an assessment of which system would work better, but an argument for a utopia, against a system with flaws. The flaws in their own system are ignored.
Capitalism it is said, is controlled by the 1% (which would be about 3 million Americans). Big government however is controlled by 535 members of congress, 17 executives including the President, and 9 supreme court justices. That is .000187% of Americans in control, instead of 1%. Even if you include the 2.6 million bureaucrats in the government control scenario, it is still less than 1% (only .87%) controlling the economy. In reality, in a free market system 100% of the people would control the economy, because only pieces of the economy that the market (and individuals making up the market) demands, would exist.
And the same reporter who wishes to defend a drone assassination on his political “enemy”, wrote a defense of big government earlier this year. In it Grunwald claims it is only big government standing in the way of rampant terrorism, regular mass shootings, unsafe working and living conditions, and discrimination. He says that individual rights need to be balanced with the government’s ability to quell these impending disasters which the free market would hoist upon us. Obviously the government needs to be even bigger than it is now to solve these problems, which still exist in a country with a government that uses a quarter of the entire production of our country to govern. And apparently Grunwald thinks that corruption, misallocation of resources, or human error will not be a problem when the government is big enough to protect us from everything scary about the world.
We know our government is fallible, because it’s made up of people, but we still count on it to protect us from terrorists, from psychos with guns, from exploding factories. We also need it to protect us from floods and wildfires, from financial meltdowns and climate change. We can’t do that kind of thing ourselves.
And how’s the track record on that so far? The last financial meltdown was caused by the government. Benghazi, the Marathon, Aurora, Newton, an exploding factory and wildfires have all happened within a year, when the government is bigger then it ever has been. Do we just need it to be a little bigger? Have a little more power? Take a little more taxes? People like Grunwald pretend the government can do what it cannot, and pretend the private sector can’t do what it has always done: respond to a market demand. In a free market if people demand protection from those things, someone seeking profit will supply a solution. The “evil” incentive of profit gets things done, while the “noble” government has nothing but the voters to enforce its responsibilities. When we vote with our dollars to get things done, the resources are directed in the most beneficial places according to what each individual wants to spend their money on. When we vote for politicians we are tricked with our own money into supporting and paying for things we would never consciously put a dollar towards on our own.
In Grunwald’s narrative the government is only big where it needs to be big: catching and questioning terrorists, preventing market failures (LOL), making sure only the government has “assault weapons designed for mass slaughter”. We are all just helpless individuals who could never organize ourselves enough to protect against our scary world. And the government will only suspend the rights of terrorists, will only prevent criminals from protecting themselves, will only strike down the evil corporations and there could never be any unintended victims.
Grunwald saved his “using-dead-children-to-make-you-feel-bad-if-you-disagree” tactic for the last couple paragraphs. It is so easy when there’s a name attached to the victim. Look at these dead kids who prove the flaws in our imperfect system, and ignore the millions of unnamed victims under our utopian government system. This is the mindset of the people who write your news, who run your government: look only at this one section of the story and never at the whole picture. Look only at these lives lost, and not at net lives saved. It is a good tactic for arguing for the support of the ignorant masses. It is a bad tactic if you actually want to make the world a better place.