More fodder from Molly Ivins

Commentary on certain parts of this column by Molly Ivins. (I’m picking on her lately for two reasons. First, she demonstrates vividly one of my favorite theses about liberals: they don’t think, they emote; they don’t analyze an opponent’s position, they caricature it; they don’t argue, they insult. Second, she lives in my home state, the Great State of Texas.)

AUSTIN, Texas -- Thank goodness the Republicans are around to tell me what to worry about.... [O]f great concern to Republicans is God Almighty, who...has been elected chairman of the Texas Republican Party. That's what they announced at the biannual convention in Fort Worth this week: "He is the chairman of the Party." Sheesh, the Democrats couldn't even get Superman.

Quite right, the Democrats can only manage Supermouth. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist.) Besides, what exactly is so bad about God being the chairman of the party? It’s an overstatement, of course. I wouldn’t have made such a statement. Assuming that there is a "God Almighty" having "great concern" for him seems pretty rational (rational, I mean, if one grants the assumption, which I explicitly do). Indeed, one could say that God Almighty is, as theologian Paul Tillich would put it, of ultimate concern. Of course, to say that God Almighty is of ultimate concern is one thing; to say that He is the chairman of a political party is a bit over the top. I’ll grant Ivins that much.

Also weighing down the nation with a heavy burden is the estate tax, which the Senate will try to repeal this week. The estate tax applies to around 1 percent of Americans, and I have yet to find any record of it costing anyone a family farm or business. It affects only very, very, very rich people, of whom you are probably not one. And they don't, actually, need another tax break.

A theme which runs throughout her column is that Congress need only work in areas in which there is some sort of crisis. If only they would. (But then there would be the obligatory debate over what constitutes a crisis. But I digress.) Look at the logic of her argument. If something applies to, and hence only affects, 1 percent of Americans then no one need bother about it. Would she like to have the same logic applied to something like rape, if only 1 percent of American women were raped? (Note to liberals: If you think I just compared getting taxed to getting raped, then you missed the point of comparison.) Could she live with Congress (or the Texas state legislature) taking no action on the matter and justifying their inaction on the basis that only 1 percent of the population is, or would be, affected by the action? I doubt it. My objection to the estate tax—and I am by no means wealthy (ask The Oracle)—is that I believe it is ethically wrong. That’s right: it’s wrong. I believe it is stealing. It is taking from someone for no other reason than that he has it to take from in the first place. And you’re right, Molly, the rich do not need another tax break. They deserve another tax break. They deserve a break from any and all taxes that are justified on the sole basis of their being rich. Stealing is wrong, even when the victim can "afford" to be stolen from. I see no reason why the wealthy should be subjected to a tax that, by your own admission, no one else is subjected to, or affected by.

These are the things we are supposed to be worrying about, and you notice that it frees us of quite a few troubles we might otherwise fret about. The war in Iraq? No sweat.

She’s lying. She has to know very well, that the war is probably the single greatest reason for the President’s low popularity rating. No sweat? The media call him on the war every opportunity they are given—or can take. As Ivins herself has most recently done.

Impending war with Iran? We're carefree.

The recent move of the administration (which has really irritated The Dragon Master Gunner) to negotiate with Iran on the issue of nukes constitutes being "carefree"? "Carefree" must not mean what I think it means. Really, this sort of move strikes me as an honest, if misguided, attempt to seek to avoid unnecessary conflict. It strikes me as being equivalent to telling Iran that they have until the count of three and then counting off, One, one-and-a-quarter, one-and-a-half, one and three-quarters, one and seven-eighths...." Carefree? Please.

The economy? Hey, did you see that employment report? Well, ignore it.

Well, despite it’s having become standard practice to do so, I don’t hold the federal government constitutionally responsible for anyone’s employment status. I don’t find either the power or the authority on this matter to have been granted by the Constitution to the federal government. And as we all know, liberals are all about following the Constitution. (We’ll see Ivins express concern for the Constitution below.) However, I will grant that other, legitimate actions of the fed. Can affect things like employment—things like the minimum wage, for example. Interestingly, given their concern for employment, despite reams of evidence and numbers-crunching (some of which I’ve done myself) which demonstrate that minimum wage actually puts people out of work we still have this harmful law. Democrats still insist on there being a federally mandated minimum wage. It staggers the imagination. And only someone who hasn’t tried to manage a business could continue thinking that declaring a minimum wage—without a universal price-freeze (i.e., a freeze on the prices of all goods and service in the nation)—will actually solve anything. (Incidentally that price freeze wouldn’t work either, unless Congress could find a way to institute a worldwide price freeze. I don’t need to explain why, do I?)

Budget out of control, shipwreck ahead? Never mind -- Bush doesn't. Worst class divisions since the Gilded Age, rich so much more enormously richer than everybody else, country starting to get creepy? Don't worry, be happy. Torture, massacre, extraordinary rendition, hidden gulag of prisons in foreign countries, Guantanamo, and massive violations of international law, American law and the Constitution? Well, you can see why gay marriage is a far greater menace.

Well, if the President doesn’t "mind," it may be that he just knows more about finance than a journalist does. (Unless being a liberal with a journalism degree makes one more of an expert in these matters then being near-conservative with an MBA.) I don’t know. The budget is out of control? I’m not sure how we define "out of control" here. Last year (the last year for which I have figures at my fingertips) revenues were $2.119 trillion and expenditures were $2.466. Clearly, expenditures exceeded revenues, but only by 16 percent. Granted, expenditures should not exceed revenues; but I just cannot agree to a characterization of our budget problem as "out of control" when the variance is 16 percent. Given that fact, I don’t think it’s exactly a shipwreck, either. And as for those pesky class divisions and the gap between the rich and the poor, although I do think it’s a problem, I also don’t see a responsibility or an authority in the Constitution given to Congress to fix those problems. Besides the rolls of the rich and the poor are not fixed. Some who are poor become rich, and vice-versa. Regardless, of all that, however, nothing about the attempt at a federal marriage amendment makes gay marriage a "greater concern." It may be a lesser concern, but that doesn’t preclude its being dealt with concurrently with other matters. After all, I doubt very much that Molly Ivins would be less critical of the federal marriage amendment if the budget problem were fixed the gap between rich and poor closer, there were no torture, massacres, gulags, or violations of international and domestic law. Assuming those conditions, would she then say, "Okay, now you can try to pass your amendment"? Sure she would. And I’m really a higher being in the TTLB Ecosystem, not an insignificant microbe. Really.

By the way, I thought the Constitution was a living, breathing document. That’s what originalists are told when we insist on a close reading of the Constitution. Now, suddenly, the living, breathing document is so fixed as to have inflexible provisions violations of which a President can be held responsible for. And certainly, if our Constitution is a living, breathing document, certainly the body of existing international law is, as well. Or, again, do these things have a fixed meaning only when a conservative is being judged against it?

Wipe out for the environment; hundreds of regulations and laws changed to favor those who exploit and damage natural resources; all so common, no one is keeping track of them all? Let her rip.

Rather than get into whether the environment is being harmed, I just want to focus in on her use of the word, exploit. In my post on oil profits, I explained how, on a marxist view, profit is evidence of exploitation. (And I have no doubt that Ivins is in the heart of her bottom a marxist.) The one thing I gather when left-liberals talk of someone’s "exploiting" and "damaging" natural resources, is that what they most object to is someone’s making a profit from natural resources. Marxists (I speak as a former marxist, recall) view natural resources as belonging to the world. Any single entity who makes a profit off of those natural resources is, therefore, a thief.

Global warming? In the first place, it's Al Gore's issue. In the second place, it's a downer. In the third place, who cares if it's too late in a few years?

Actually, that isn’t the argument. The argument, even if false, is that there is no global warming in any significant sense of the term. There isn’t global warming just because a few scientists say there is any more than there isn’t global warming just because a few scientists say there isn’t. The issue is still highly and hotly contested and Republicans choose not to pretend that the "jury" isn’t still out on the question. Liberals think that once they have decided where they stand on an issue, the discussion is closed.Oil crisis? Ha! What oil crisis? You want a $100 rebate you can then give the oil companies? Hey, we're going to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and that should see us through ... oh, about nine months. Windfall profits? You think the oil companies are ripping us off for windfall profits? Who? ExxonMobil? Why, they would never!
Ripping us off? To make a mere 9.7 percent profit? (Bear in mind, again, that any profit, on a marxist view, is evidence of exploitation. Any profit is then a rip-off.)

I believe what we have here is a difference over moral values.

Finally, something we can agree upon!

The Republicans are worried about the flag, gay marriage and the terrible burden of the estate tax on the rich. The rest of us are obviously unnecessarily worried about war, peace, the economy, the environment and civilization. Another reason to vote Republican -- they have a shorter list.

Notice what she does with an assertion that is actually true. She says, "The Republicans are worried about the flag, gay marriage and the terrible burden of the estate tax on the rich." And it’s true, Republicans are concerned about those things. But Ivins actually writes so as to communicate the idea that "The Republicans are worried only about the flag, gay marriage and the terrible burden of the estate tax on the rich." See the difference? Ivins tacitly asserts that Republicans are not concerned about war, peace, the economy, the environment and civilization. And why? It can be only because Republicans disagree with Democrats about the solutions to these problems. Typically liberal approach: If you disagree with us about what the solutions are, it can only be because you disagree with us about what the problems are.

The only apparent reason to vote Democrat: Democrats are right (so to speak), and Republicans are wrong—because Democrats say so.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Molly.