slow-bleed strategy

Two things* have grabbed my attention this week. First, Stanford University has a really interesting interview with Christopher Hitchens, an interview which isn’t necessarily recent, but is nevertheless relevant. Secondly, I have been trying to understand the almost religious fervor with which Democrats are opposing drilling of any kind. Prohibiting drilling seems to be the new ‘moral’ issue for Democrats: like abortion, drilling must be prohibited at any and every opportunity… at least, that’s what I used to think. What has recently become clear to me is that this issue is NOT, in fact a moral issue… it is actually a merely political one. To be a truly moral issue, one would expect outrage whenever the ‘sin’ is practiced. Political issues, on the other hand, are selective–like taxes, only the wealthy get accused of not paying enough. What leads me to believe that drilling is merely a political issue is the almost deathly silence by members of the Left, particularly in the US congress in the face of new drilling projects only miles off our own Gulf by China, Venesuela, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. I began to wonder why this could be; what could cause this selective outrage–outrage aimed ONLY at US businesses and energy producers. The answer became clear after listening to Hitchens’ interview.

The interview begins with the following question:

“Why do you think they [the left] broke over Iraq, and to a lesser extent, over Afghanistan, since, both the ostensible reconstruction and what happened was a promotion of democracy? Why was the left angry, what currents do you see that alienated them from the policy since they were not a part of the realist politique of the 1970′s and 80′s?”

Hitchens responds by saying

“The crucial thing for most of the left now is what goes under the name of anti-globalization; a primitive … non-marxist form of anti-capitalism. ANd if that is your main concern, then by definition the United States is the main enemy, which with only a little displacement means that any potential enemy of the United States is at least a potential friend. I have certainly read articles… from quite prominent leftists that give the strong impression that Jihadism may have its drawbacks, but it is better than no anti-globalization at all. In other words, it is a move from a conservative position to a reactionary one.”

Now, my argument depends in part on the validity of Hitchen’s claim, so I want to spend at least some time establishing the evidence of his contention of the new anti-capitalist agenda of the modern Democrat party.

First, there is developing a preference within the Democratic party to replace private, capitalist institutions with their respective government counterparts. Health care policy is a prime example of this developing preference; Democrats want to turn an entire segment of our economy into a government institution. If Democrats believed in the capitalist system; why would they want to socialize a trillion-dollar business? The question, obviously, is rhetorical. Anyone with the slightest respect for capitalism wouldn’t be demanding a complete government takeover as the solution of first choice–especially when other approaches may be tried without such a fundamental shift.

One sees this indifferent attitude threaded through many other policy areas as well. Business taxes are never high enough, the RICH never pay enough, and intense regulatory regimes make certain businesses prohibitively expensive. Similar distaste for private alternatives also exist in areas like the education system as I have previously noted.

Secondly, profits have become the new ‘causus beli‘ for the left, especially if that profit margin is 8% and you are in an industry drilling for various liquids in various parts of the country. Never mind the fact that 8% profit margin is a rather meager margin, or that that the companies making these meager profits are employing, providing health care, insuring, and feeding hundreds of thousands of American citizens, or that these companies make your and my life possible by providing us a source of energy we need to accomplish even the simplest tasks. No… none of this matters because the motive for accomplishing these ends … the profit motive… is inherently suspect.

Third, there is a general unwillingness to let markets fix themselves by many on the Left (and Right, for that matter)–requiring government intervention into almost every market problem. Whether you are letting market actors (i.e. “speculators”) use market mechanisms to secure future commodity prices or allowing the market to adjust downward to reflect more apparent risks in the housing market, modern liberals require government intervention in problems which are best left to the market’s internal control mechanisms–mechanisms that react much more quickly and effectively than ‘bailouts’ ever could.

Hitchens prescient** observation helps explain not only the Democrat dissolution with the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts but also their selective outrage on environmental issues. When non-capitalist countries such as China, Russia, or Venesuela drill within 100 miles off the Florida coast… not a whisper is heard from Democrat lawmakers. But the suggestion that an American business engage in the the same activity draws cries of outrage from these same lawmakers. The Billions of personal wealth held by Russian oil tycoons such as Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Fridman, or Vladmir Putin inexplicably escape criticism from Democrat lawmakers but a (comparatively) moderate yearly compensation of 10 or 20 million dollars by an American CEO draws rabid screams of outrage! How can this be?!

It’s the profit motive, stupid.

You see, it is only capitalist institutions who engage in activity for profit that draw the attacks and slander of modern Liberals. Economic activities done by Private, US companies are subject to the highest scrutiny, while these same activities, if practiced by non-capitalist countries, are not criticized in the slightest!!! There are no senate committees questioning OPEC directors… no committees attacking Putin’s oil tycoons, no committees demanding China clean its environment… no bills demanding Europe buy carbon credits from our businesses… no demand Saudi Arabia ALSO refrain from drilling for the sake of the environment… no explanation of how stopping American businesses from speculation will in any way mitigate the worldwide speculation problem. No, only America is forced to bleed the consequences of environmental sins.

This anti-capitalist agenda is even more apparent when you look beyond liberal rhetoric to their policies. Take a look at the ‘solutions’ to the global-warming: carbon-credits, mandated fuel standards, increased carbon taxes, lifestyle alterations–all of these are simply a litany of ways for a more intrusive federal government into the private sector. The only ‘solutions’ to global warming liberals advocate are government solutions… not private sector solutions. It doesn’t matter if windmills can’t replace our energy needs; it’s what liberals think is best. It doesn’t matter if we can’t grow enough corn to power even a tiny fraction of our automotive backbone; it is the ‘solution’ liberals have chosen through outrageous subsidies. The vision of the anointed is what matters; not the collective conscience of rational, market actors.

The environmental agenda is only a front; Liberals don’t care about the environment UNLESS they can use it as a tool, as a mechanism to attack capitalism and promote an ever-more-intrusive federal government. There is no true LOVE of the earth backing up this movement, if there were, we would expect to see CONSISTENCE IN LIBERAL OUTRAGE! But we do not see the same vitriol against any other country who engages in carbon-related activities. ONLY America cannot drill for more oil…. ONLY AMERICA must give up our economic and national interests so that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela may further suppliment their own interests. ONLY America must accept high gasoline prices while the rest of the world can produce their way to lower prices. ONLY Americans must invest trillions to become “green” even though doing so will not make a dent in worldwide CO2 output. America must bleed… WE must be the sacrificial lamb at the alter of environmental worship.

This is the dirty little secret of American Liberalism… anti-globalization under the guise of environmentalism.

* I also recently watched a fantastic interview with Vaclav Klaus on the same topic within the past few weeks — HIGHLY RECOMMENDED viewing.

** sorry, that word is not on the Pompous Ass Word website… although I think it should be.