Tuesday, 4 September 2012

The dangerous myths about American history that Obama believes

Every nation has its myths, i.e. interpretations of past events that shape the national psyche. These myths – which may be wholly true, partly true, or wholly untrue – provide a semi-rigid framework for political discourse and action. Every myth places certain political actions – no matter how sensible - beyond the pale, and makes it easier to implement others, no matter how harmful. Many of America’s current problems are a result of Obama working within a structure comprised of myths which are demonstrably false. Here are some of the main ones:

1. The attempt to rid the American government and Hollywood of communist infiltrators in the ‘40s and ‘50s was an irrational witch hunt against decent, innocent idealists who just wanted a square deal for the little guy.

2. FDR’s Keynesian New Deal dragged America out of the Great Depression by placing the country in the hands of an army of Progressive experts who spent huge amounts of taxpayers’ money on successful infrastructure projects, thereby getting people back into work.

3. LBJ’s Great Society reforms brought hope and change to millions of underprivileged Americans and went some way to redressing sins against the black population by fast-tracking social justice.

4. It’s the job of the rich to fund America’s burgeoning welfare system more generously than they already do.

5. JFK was a liberal martyr, killed by the Mafia, Cuban exiles, the CIA and Texas oil barons acting in concert to thwart the democratic process.

6. A major source of America’s strength is its cultural diversity.

7. The world’s wealth and its natural resources are finite: America’s wealth means poverty for other countries, and America’s use of natural resources foreshadows ecological disaster.

Everything Obama has said or done since he started campaigning for the presidency, rests on one or several of these myths. That’s why America finds itself in such a sorry state – it’s a case of Rubbish In, Rubbish Out. Without these myths, he wouldn’t have had a hope of getting away with the dreadful harm he’s done in office.

Here’s a right-wing (i.e. correct) perspective on each of those myths:

1. Senator McCarthy and his allies were right from start to finish. The American government, most importantly the State Department and sections of the military were riddled with communist spies, fellow-travellers and useful idiots who were acting covertly (and often pretty damned overtly) in the interests of Soviet or Chinese Communism. For instance, the pro-Mao propaganda campaign run by eminent communists in the State Department resulted in the US withdrawing supporting from Chang Kai-Shek and handing power to a monstrous tyrant who would proceed to starve to death and butcher tens of millions of his own people. Other commie traitors bamboozled the American government into allowing the Soviet Union to enslave a host of European countries after the war. In addition, Hollywood was seething with Soviet agents and sympathisers seeking to inject socialist propaganda into mainstream entertainment.

The demonization of Joe McCarthy and the (unrelated) House Un-American Activities Committee has been one of the American Left’s greatest achievements. It has allowed left-wingers to dismiss accusations regarding their own extreme socialist views as populist scare-mongering, and has meant that the only way to outmanoeuvre them is to appeal to more ancient American myths to do with the Frontier Spirit, the Founding Fathers, self-reliance, individualism, patriotism and sheer guts: but it takes a political genius of the stature of Ronald Reagan to do that, and, Mitt, you ain’t no Reagan!

2. Spending vast amounts of tax-payers’ money in order to kick-start the economy was an almighty failure in the 1930s – it held up recovery for at least five years – and has proved an even greater failure since 2008. It just doesn’t work: it’s the ultimate form of Indian Rope Trick economics. This is the myth that underpins a number of nonsensical beliefs, e.g. governments know how to micro-manage the economy; governments create real jobs; governments create wealth. Obama’s latest attempt to keep the myth alive was to tell American business leaders, “You didn’t build that”.

3. LBJ’s Great Society offered career advancement for countless left-wing "experts" and professional race-mongers, if no one else. By increasing crime rates, promoting the growth of single-parent families, destroying education standards, lowering black employment rates, and by vastly increasing the number of people dependent on welfare, LBJ’s mad spending spree reversed all the gains blacks had made in the preceding 60 years, tore America’s cities apart into the bargain, and almost destroyed the US economy in the ‘70s. Again, spending vast sums of taxpayers’ money to create a more “just” society achieved exactly the opposite result to the one intended – it always does.

4. Rich entrepreneurs create real, worthwhile, productive, tax-yielding private sector employment. To propose confiscating yet more of their money in order to create wealth-destroying, government-funded “pretend” jobs, and to swell America’s vast army of welfare dependents demonstrates an almost criminal level of economic illiteracy.  The idea that, no matter how much of their money you confiscate, the capitalist private sector will be able to go on squeezing out sufficient profits to fund an increasingly ruinous socialist welfare state is probably the most damaging myth of our age. Unfortunately, a large number of Americans (not to mention most Europeans) seem only too willing to swallow this deranged world-view.

5. JFK was murdered by a communist because he understood the terrible dangers posed by extreme socialism. If JFK were alive today, he’d be horrified by the left-wing drivel spewing from the White House – I imagine even poor old LBJ would utter a characteristic string of profanities if he could see what damage his policies had wrought.

6. America’s strength resulted from centuries of insisting that newcomers leave their past behind and sign up to core American values: before modern Progressives got to work destroying the system, America was a shining example of the power of monoculturalism.

7. The notions that the global wealth pie is finite and that we’re about to run out of fossil fuels are, frankly, babyish, and create a dangerous climate of fear and hatred between classes, nations and races  - hatred which Obama seems to share, and, which if he doesn’t, is quite willing to exploit for petty political ends.

Having comprehensively lost the Battle of Ideas in the 1980s, the Left simply
vacated the field of rational debate, and, unable to find any proof that what they believed would work has actually ever worked in the real world, simply substituted myth for reality. I presume the reason this ploy has proved so successful lies in the observation of that great conservative thinker, T.S. Eliot: “Human beings cannot stand too much reality.”

Which I guess is why there’s still a good chance that Obama will be re-elected later this year.

11 comments:

  1. C.f. Janet Daley in the Telegraph the other day, We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show, where she writes about the impossibility of funding the welfare state as currently configured and about the Republican convention in Florida and says:

    "Contrary to what many know-nothing British observers seem to think, the message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue."

    It's a good article.

    Unlike Ewen MacAskill's coverage in today's Guardian of the Democratic Convention, Michelle Obama makes the political and personal case for four more years – "First lady tells Democratic national convention her husband is the only candidate who will deliver opportunity for all".

    Opportunity.

    We have that over here as well. Sir-Gus-now-Lord O'Donnell says so. Back in 2003 he co-wrote a book about it with Ed Balls, Microeconomic Reform in Britain: Delivering Opportunities for All.

    Maybe there's a rule. Look askance at O'Donnells and Ballses and Obamas banging on about opportunity explicitly. It dies in their hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're being unfair - after all, their policies have handed our descendants the opportunity to pay for all the fun our politicians and civil servants had pissing away all our money!

      Good woman, Janet Daley.

      Delete
  2. Writing in the Sunday Times, The rich are doing their bit. Are you?, Dominic Lawson questions this business of lifting people out of tax.

    Well-trained seals that we are, we all clap our little flippers when we hear about it, but is it a good thing?

    Is it a good thing that, in the UK, latest figures, the bottom-earning 50% of the population pays 2.25% of all income tax while the top 1% pays 37%? Representation without taxation?

    Reading The Passing of Parliament, SDG's life-changing recommendation, or Robin Harris's The Conservatives – a history, say, you get the picture.

    Political parties have to be big, national, centrally-controlled organisations with policies and whips and discipline. There's no room for independents. The parties need to bribe us with our own money to attain and retain power. They need national popularity and it takes a big machine to get it.

    Once in power they become rapacious. They're desperate to raise revenue. With no limits. It's disturbed behaviour, an uncontrollable hunger, but there it is.

    Why? Because of universal suffrage.

    It didn't use to be like this. But then we didn't used to have universal suffrage.

    Remember Churchill's dictum that parliamentary democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the rest. He's probably right.

    Could we somehow get back the independence of MPs and somehow gain a less mendacious Executive while retaining universal suffrage? Could we somehow allow the national character to express itself and not be drowned in meaningless guff about opportunity?

    How about everybody gets to pay tax (thus becoming righteous) and everybody gets to vote but, neatly, their votes are proportional to the tax they pay?

    I have put zero thought into this no doubt unoriginal idea. Par for any Executive policy. Will it fly, do you think, if we run it up the flagpole?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a sneaking suspicion that your idea of linking voting power to the amount of tax paid might not get off the ground. After all, we live in an era where the more you pay, the more abuse you receive, and America seems to have gone from the principle of "No taxation without representation!" to "Representation without taxation!"

      Delete
  3. Really enjoyed this post and comments by David Moss. These are enormous subjects. Some very brief comments:

    Point 1. McCarthy ["Have you no sense of decency,sir?"]. He lost it when he accused General George Marshall, America's C-in-C in WW2 and Eisenhower's former boss, of being a fellow traveller. When American politicians attack their armed services it always ends in tears.


    The Soviet spheres of influence in Eastern Europe post-war was settled at Teheran and Yalta and WSC played a major part. It was a settlement for a huge butcher's bill and to provide the Soviets with a deep buffer zone against future European invasions[of which there had been four in the previous 133 years]. No bamboozling. The betrayal of Poland and the repatriation of Russians to face death or the Gulags was just as much British-led as American.


    Point 2. Government infrastructure projects. In 1956 President Eisenhower signed off on the Interstate Freeway System Bill and by 2010 nearly 48,000 miles had been completed at a cost of $425b. This mammoth project was a factor in making America the super power it is to-day and was the biggest public building project since the pyramids.

    Point 4. Taxing the rich. It is often overlooked that the rich in America also have the tradition of being very generous in contributing vast sums of money to charitable causes - many of which benefit the poor. It is a tradition which has evaporated in the richer European countries. If they are taxed any further they might not feel so generous.


    David Moss. Very interesting point about universal suffrage. Won't comment here as I have gone way over the space limit for which I apologize. But any overhaul of the democratic process which made it more conviction-driven rather vote-winning can only be welcome. It worries me the amount of treasure and energy and, above all, time the Americans spend on electing their presidents and politicians instead of tackling the problems. Perhaps that is why the professional bureacrats have gained so much power?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. The only problem with the standard narrative of Joseph Welch’s “Have you no sense of decency” attack is that it’s all nonsense. Welch himself had publicly outed the “lad” lawyer in question several weeks earlier. Welch was a classic, old school, weasel of a lawyer, twisting the truth and obfuscating throughout the hearings at every turn, treating them as if McCarthy was on trial and resorting to outrageous emotional bullshit at every turn. The Army’s record over many years of unjustifiably re-instating personnel working in highly sensitive areas whose dismissal had been recommended after they’d been proved to be communist infiltrators smelt to high heaven of a leftist conspiracy. Yes, McCarthy was a crude, bludgeoning crusader who made many mistakes and occasionally chose his targets unwisely – but it seems reasonable that he should call senior officers to account for ignoring what to any objective observer would have looked a communist conspiracy aimed at undermining America’s security in their organisation. At the time, McCarthy’s attack on Marshall (which eventually did for the senator) seemed shocking – in hindsight, and with everything that has come to light since, it seems spot on. The Army-McCarthy hearings were a stitch-up, organised by Eisenhower’s White House – Ike, a corporatist centrist, loathed his fellow-Republican.

      2. Interestingly, Marshall backed the Soviet strategy which gave Stalin control of Eastern Europe, and opposed Churchill’s plans, which would have kept it out of their hands.

      2. Sensible infrastructure projects might be a good idea when your country’s doing well – building for the future etc. – not such a great idea when you’re trillions of dollars in debt. Roosevelt held up the US recovery in the 1930s by squandering billions on these projects, and Obama’s doing the same now.

      4. Huckabee was on Fox this morning pointing out that 5% of Americans pay over 55% of all federal taxes, while 50% pay no tax at all. You’d have thought an occasional thank you might be appropriate. Americans who earn over $10m a year donate 6.5% to charity (Romney generally gives more). When leftists talk about a “fair share”, I have no idea what they mean – would a 100% tax rate on the rich satisfy them? I’m sure the Democrats would love Republicans to stop giving to charity, as they believe the state should have a monopoly on dispensing largesse. For that reason – amongst others – I think Republicans will go on donating, come what may.

      Delete
  4. 1. The attempt to rid the American government and Hollywood of communist infiltrators in the '40s and '50s was an irrational witch hunt against decent, innocent idealists who just wanted a square deal for the little guy.

    We had a sort of equivalent here in the UK, organised by the Foreign Office through IRD, the Information Research Department.

    George Orwell provided a list of crypto-communists and fellow travellers who should not be used by IRD in fighting the Cold War.

    His gloss on the matter was:

    The important thing to do with these people - and it is extremely difficult, since one has only inferential evidence - is to sort them out and determine which of them is honest and which is not. There is, for instance, a whole group of M. P.s in the British Parliament (Pritt, Zilliacus, etc.) who are commonly nicknamed 'the cryptos'. They have undoubtedly done a great deal of mischief, especially in confusing public opinion about the nature of the puppet regimes in Eastern Europe; but one ought not hurriedly to assume that they all hold the same opinions. Probably some of them are actuated by nothing worse than stupidity.

    This was the action of a man who lived and breathed socialism and had done all his adult life. He had first hand experience of the communists in Spain, friends of his were tortured by the communists, he knew how Stalin organised spies to report back on events in Spain, he had the devil of a job getting Animal Farm published (1945) against the machinations of the publishing industry and the Foreign Office while they were still supporting Stalin as an ally against Germany.

    He knew what he was doing, he must have known that it would be regarded by many as a betrayal and yet he did it. He must have thought it was the right thing to do.

    Unlike today's commentators, Orwell had the scars to prove his first-hand experience of political combat and he had the testimony of decades of journalism to show that he was profoundly conscientious and thoughtful about politics. He wrote that list and he handed it over. He really did want "a square deal for the little guy".

    The alternative, after all, was a gulag archipelago. An alternative the trained seals decrying HUAC were and are comfortably ignorant of.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, Mr Moss - the Orwell quote is fascinating, and I agree with every word you say. Departing BBC DG Mark Thompson's refusal to allow s statue of Orwell to be erected at White City because he was "left-wing" was disgraceful - and disgracefully stupid.

    I know orwell would never have become a Tory, but do you think if the Great Man had lived another 20 years, might have forsaken his Etonian self-loathing to become an advocate of the small state and a loather of liberal "experts"? I rather think he might.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree.

    We've been here before, of course and I'm sure we'll be back again.

    I ploughed through Orwell's biography by Gordon Bowker. Mr Bowker does the job, the book's packed with facts. But he doesn't capture "Orwell the man", so to speak, the man who speaks to us from all those articles and books.

    Bowker paints one interesting picture, of Orwell on the wild island of Jura. He used to ride around on a motorbike, unkempt, and as often as not with a scythe tied to his back.

    He has one reference which stays in the mind more than most. QD Leavis wrote in Scrutiny, September 1940: "If he would give up trying to be a novelist Mr Orwell might find his métier in literary criticism, in a special line of it peculiar to himself and which is particularly needed now" (p.263).

    And he records that when Orwell started to earn a lot of money (from Animal Farm) he accepted his accountant Mr Harrison's advice to reduce his tax bill by incorporating as George Orwell Productions: "I feel no scruples and would dodge tax if I could ... No one is patriotic about taxes" (p.350).

    He took some trouble to overcome the church's opposition to his being buried in Church of England graveyard.

    Just hours before his death, Harrison got Orwell to sign over 25% of the company to him (p.413).

    But that doesn't make him a socialist. Not in the end. In a patchy Guardian article the other day, Geoffrey Wheatcroft says:

    He once wrote that Anatole France was not really a socialist but a radical, as could be seen quite simply in "his passion for liberty and intellectual honesty" Orwell must have known that he was writing about himself.

    Which takes us back to your suggestions last October that Orwell, had he survived, might have trodden the same path as "Kingsley Amis, Robert Conquest, Philip Larkin, John Braine and John Osborne, and dozens of other youthful socialists who, faced with the reality of left-wing governments around the world, eventually came to their senses".

    And to mine, that Orwell was in the tradition identified by Richard Ingrams in his Cobbett book, the tradition of the conservative radical.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As we seem to have lost control of the original points system [you have two Points 2 now]let me simply ask you three questions]:

    1. Do you really believe that General Marshall was a communist sympathiser?

    2. Are you aware of the meetings that WSC had with Stalin in Moscow [no Americans present] when he proposed percentages of spheres of influence post-war on the back of an envellope - 90% for the whole of Eastern Europe to the Soviets, 90% of Greece to Britain? Stalin agreed.

    3. Do you not think that the 1956 Interstate Freeway System Bill had enormous benefits for America in spite of its cost [Eisenhower, not Roosevelt]?

    What Orwell has to do with all of this I leave to people far more clever than myself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. No - but he apparently failed to address communist infiltration of the military, and that's what McCarthy basically accused him of - i.e. negligence.

    2. You've got me there - I'll look into it. But it doesn't alter the fact that American government departments at that time were lousy with communists doing their best for Uncle Joe by making US policy more pro-Soviet.

    3. No, I think the money spent by Eisenhower on roads was probably well spent, because he was building for the future when his country was in the black - Roosevelt, by contrast, wasted money that America couldn't afford, and his country's economy was ultimately saved by the build-up to war in Europe and by a cyclical upturn - albeit delayed thanks to government interference - in the private sector (and other stuff).

    We both misnumbered our points - apologies.

    ReplyDelete