Dear Congressman Ryan:
You are a fine man. Unlike so many other politicians, you are committed to truth and not to ideology, you know well what you are talking about, your statements are meaningful, sound, and do not contradict each other, and you know how to carry yourself politely and with respect to your adversary. I don’t find in you any arrogance so common for some elected buffoons who cover their ignorance and a lack of intellectual sophistication with rudeness and intimidation, or empty laughter if the other two are not enough of a cover-up.
Unfortunately, your virtues won’t take you far in this political reality where narrow-minded bullies seem to enjoy enthusiastic support of nearly half (some say, 47 percent) of the American electorate, big part of that group being dominated by militant lefto-liberal activists and thuggish bosses of public sector labor unions. (Not that all public sector union bosses are that way.) This is hardly surprising as many of them insist on electing government officials that look like them and act like them. After all, birds of feather flock together.
Vice-president Joe Biden during the debate with you yesterday must have pleased his core constituency with his conduct that, according to the Declaration of Independence, was more reminiscent of late king George of Great Britain than of a vice-president of a democratic and, arguably, the most civilized country on Earth. Perhaps, he was faithfully applying the J.F.K.’s favorite motto “Nice guys finish last“, trying to stay in line with his party tradition.
But you have the facts and logic on your side, so you are the one who is well positioned to deliver a politically fatal blow to your slick and deceitful but otherwise simple-minded opponent, without reciprocating his sorrily unprofessional conduct. Just, please, don’t hesitate to confront your opponent with hard hitting his most vulnerable spot, the ideology, while leaving to others the technical details of rebuttals to his convoluted, invalid, absurd, and otherwise incoherent rhetoric.
Let me list some major facts and points that you and Mr. Mitt Romney may wish to consider bringing up in the remainder of the election campaign.
Fact 1. The foundation of the liberal ideology is an overwhelming collection of (often well-intentioned and emotionally-loaded) falsehoods and fallacies. Fortunately for We the People, the facts refute the ideology. Furthermore, the ideology has been notorious for self-contradictions and absurd consequences, characteristic of any fallacious system of believes. The liberals need to be reminded about this at every possible occasion, openly and frontally, and without even a shade of apology.
A good example here is this administration’s Middle-East policy and the way the administration has handled the recent events in the region. It is based on an unproved belief (a fallacy, if you will) that all we need to do in order to turn dysfunctional but oftentimes threatening societies onto our allies and partners is to teach their peoples how to build democracies and train them to fight terrorist organizations. Vice-president Biden expressed such a belief when he authoritatively dismissed your well-supported criticism of one of the obvious absurdities of his boss’s policy. He claimed that the Afghans, trained by the U.S. Armed Forces, will fight al-Queida and secure peace in the region.
“The Afghans will do it!”
He repeated with the tenor in his voice that might be appropriate for a bonehead but not for the Vice-president of the U.S.
One can hardly imagine a naiver statement, particularly, when made by the first-in-line of succession to the position of the Commander-in-chief of the U.S. Military.
How about training al-Queida to renounce their attacks on America and to turn them into fighters for a good cause? After all, they are good at fighting and enjoy strong support of their compatriots. If this is not naive enough plan for Vice-president Biden, then how about reinforcing it with a massive campaign of apologizing for all the wrongs that Americans have done to the Afghan people (and other peoples of the region), and for our stubborn refusal to submit to their demands? Still not naive enough, Mr. Biden? How about if we just disarm ourselves and renounce any use of force in future conflicts?
Well, not only there is not a shred of proof that such gargantuan naiveté is going to work for the American people, as it never did, but the facts provide ample evidence that it will not. Just remember the news about some American-trained Afghan soldiers who, out of their gratitude for our generosity and goodwill, shoot and killed their American protectors with the guns that we gave them. This should be enough for an intelligent person to become skeptical about Vice-president Biden ill-conceived recipe for Middle East peace.
The resulting failures of this naive foreign policy oscillate between the scandal and the disaster, as the recent wave of anti-American violence across the Middle East, and the administration’s effort to cover-up its incompetence of handling it, show. No presidential or vice-presidential authority or arrogance can change that fact.
Fact 2. One of the most conspicuous fallacies of the ideology is its de facto rejection of Kirchoff’s principle (formulated by Kirchoff for sums of currents in an electric circuit), which when applied to the economy postulates that the sum of material wealth distributed and consumed is equal to the sum of material wealth created (minus any waste and loss). The rejection of Kirchoff is the root cause of the well-known liberals’ inability or refusal to balance their budgets, as if they believed that they can keep spending more than they are earning as long as they have a compelling – in their opinion – reason to. So they end up desperately looking for yet another source of “other people’s money” in order to make up for the deficits that they have manufactured.
A good scheme of rebuttal of liberal claims of (future) improvements that the ideology will bring to the people is a (rhetoric) question:
“Where, in their competition-free, government-bureaucrat-controlled world, does all the improvement come from?“
(According to Kirchoff, it must come from somewhere.)
For instance, where do all the cost-saving benefits of Obamacare, that imposed draconian limitations on health-care providers while at the same time failing to provide incentives for productivity increase and technological innovations, come from? Not from the massive regulations that tell the doctors to do better job for less money, and the insurers to broaden health coverage while lowering the premiums. Not from extra level of huge bureaucracy that will be vested with power to enforce these regulations (never mind the affirmative-action doctors and nurses that the said bureaucracy will inject into the system). Certainly not from President’s Obama passionate speeches and Vice-president Biden simplistic advices.
The fact is that Obamacare did nothing to actually improve the supply side of health services. It merely imposed on the existing American health care system a burden of re-distributing these services among a larger number of the uninsured (which number now includes all the illegal aliens covered by President Obama’s “Dream Act” executive order). No matter where one stands on the redistribution part, without an increased and/or improved supply there will be no improvement of services, some worsening only. You aptly pointed out some of the grave consequences of this kind of bureaucracy-building and competition-killing legislation. (President Obama claimed during his debate with Mitt Romney that there was “no proof” that encouraging healthy interstate competition among the health-care insurers would do any good for the American health care. How sadly typical.)
A similar scheme of rebuttal would be to question:
“Where will the rich, that the liberals are going to tax heavily, take the money (and the will) to pay all these new taxes from?“
The rich will not reach to their secret and well-guarded safes, supposedly full of gold and other treasures, in order to cough-up the price for their “patriotic duty,” nor will they get used to not making profits on their investments. The rich will:
(a) find loopholes in the new tax code and exploit them while the working middle class is paying more and more, or
(b) pass the burden of their increased taxes on their workers-and-customers (by paying less to the former and/or charging more the latter), or
(c) shrink or discontinue their enterprises, or
(d) flee the country, taking their cash and income-generating manufacturing facilities with them.
(The above variants are not mutually exclusive and can be utilized in any combination.)
Infamous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked during his trial: “Why did you rob the banks?” which he replied “Because that’s where the money was.” Similarly, one can ask the liberal tax-and-spend politicians why the middle class tax burden is steadily increasing? And the answer is: “Because that’s where the bulk of the money is.” The Kirchoff’s principle tells us that the spending frenzy cannot continue without government’s further tapping to this pool of our money. And the liberals deny.
Fact 3. Another fallacy that drives liberal activism is an unfounded assertion that the government is the ultimate source or manifestation of the national wisdom. (Vice-president Biden certainly acted as if he were.) This is why they believe, and religiously so, that whatever problems the free people and free enterprises could not solve, will be satisfactorily solved by the “wise” government.
A good scheme of rebuttal of this kind of fallacious thinking is questioning
“Where does that all the government’s wisdom come from?“
Certainly, not from the elected buffoons whose cognitive talents (there are no IQ tests that those willing to govern us are required to submit to), creative capabilities , and top academic achievements have never been a factor that affected their electability by the lefto-liberal voting base. If the American computer industry and research labs had hiring standards on par with the standards required to hold an elected federal office, I would not be able to write to you this letter on my notebook computer, simply because even in my wildest dreams I could not afford one. (Never mind that it would have little memory, run slowly, and keep crashing.)
A follow-up blow should bring up all the fiascoes, failures, and the absurdities that the government’s micromanagement of the free people and the economy has brought on our heads. One can ask:
“If everything that the liberal government ‘intelligently’ re-designs is going to be so good then why is everything it has already re-designed so bad that most of it is falling apart or not working as promised?“
(You may wish to use the adjective “unsustainable” sparingly in that context.)
Again, the main point here is that once soaring American economy has been ailing and unable to recover for years now because of and not despite all the struggle of the liberal do-gooders and governments that they elect.
A good example of this kind is the catastrophic fiscal condition of the State of California that is almost absolutely ruled by the Democratic Party. What the Democratic majority (soon to be the super majority) of California legislature has been doing for decades is nothing short of a disaster. They tried to micromanage almost all aspects of life in this state. Unfortunately, they were not qualified enough to do so, and their incompetence shows. The highly productive and the employers flee the state (if they can) while millions of needy Mexicans are pouring in. And no rescue that would help sustain this legislative insanity is in sight. It doesn’t take an Einstein to predict that California’s fall from one of the world’s strongest and most dynamic economies to an insolvent borrower living of its reach (for however long will the rich last) and inching towards Malthusian trap is the nation’s future if the Democrats have their way on the federal level.
I am sure you know other examples of flawed “intelligent” re-designs as they are plentiful.
Fact 4. A liberal ideologue often appeals to human emotions in order to stir up compassion or anger in people who, as a result of the emotions induced that way, turn their rationality off and are ready to accept virtually any nonsense that comforts their feelings. A good response for such an attempt is a steady and persistent appeal to reason. We all have hearts, but instead of just letting our emotions drive our actions, we should use our brains first and calculate whatever the consequences of these actions could be. If your opponent keeps appealing to emotions ignoring your commitment to facts and logic then you could say:
“If you want me to show you my heart then you show me your brain, first.”
Fact 5. Projection is a typical cover-up employed by liberal debaters. It often gives one a clue of what they are up to. For instance, when they claim you have no record of accomplishment in some area, they most likely try to project on you their own lack of accomplishment in that area. Or when they say that your plan has no details, they most likely try to project on you their inability to coming up with a detailed plan that has a chance to work. Or if they claim that there is no proof that the solution that you propose will ever work, they cover up their never proving up front that an implementation of their fallacious ideology will do any good to our country. (And the facts show that it does not do any good to America, as the fiasco after fiasco, crisis after crisis, and a loss after loss do testify.)
President Obama keeps claiming that the American free-market economy (that he calls “capitalism”) has never worked, laying the groundwork for imposition of neo-socialism (that he implies will work). And Vice-president Biden repeats that nonsense, despite ample evidence to the contrary. American capitalism worked amazingly well until the reformer L.B.J. delivered his liberal cure, while all forms of socialism failed, and miserably so. This attempt to project liberal and socialistic failures on capitalism is reminiscent of the fable “‘Catch the thief!’ cries the thief.” (I am not equating the liberals with thieves.) It can give a rational person an idea what the social engineers from Obama-Biden administration are ready to bring on our heads: all the future failures that they are now blaming you and Mr. Mitt Romney for.
Fact 6. The blame game that the liberals are so good at is the result of their intrinsic inability to get real and actually accomplish a meaningful progress, as opposed to “progress” in deconstruction of the US by weakening it to the point where this nation is not able to resist turning the American dream into a neo-socialist nightmare. If the Obama administration were in charge of the design of a jetliner that subsequently fell and crashed killing all the passengers and the crew on board, it (the administration) would blame the gravity for the disaster that its incompetence had caused.
It is good to have a line of real culprits of the economic decay and other setbacks that we are experiencing these days. Such a list should begin with such “reformers” as:
L.B.J. (whose naive belief that one can eradicate poverty by subsidizing it was perhaps the most devastating nonsense that the liberal establishment managed to embed into American politics; he paved the road to Malthusian trap),
Jimmy Carter (who with his “community reinvestment act” reforms prepared foundation for the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and the economic crisis that is caused, never mind helping Iran to turn from and American ally to an arch-enemy),
Bill Clinton (who relentlessly followed up on Johnson’s and Carter’s dangerous ideas), and
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (who drove the last nail into the coffin of safe and rational mortgage lending, among other lasting damages that they inflicted to this country).
If George “W” Bush deserves a part of the blame for our current insolvency then it is for his “compassionate” giving-in to the liberals (including Dodd and Frank) and their never ending urge to interfere with competition-driven free markets and to stifle the ingenuity of free individuals by removing monetary incentives for hard work, innovation, and investment.
Fact 7. When cornered, an agitated liberal will award himself a mandate to break the rules in order to defend the “just cause.” This kind of revolutionary behavior must never be tolerated and needs a firm response each time it occurs before any issues may be debated.
When Vice-president Biden was interrupting, I would begin my next statement (regardless of whether the moderator moved the debate to the next topic or not) from this admonishment:
“We have certain rules that govern this debate, which we have agreed to follow. Apparently, Vice-president Biden is not following these rules by interrupting me and raising his voice as if I were deaf. It has all appearances of disrespect. It obstructs an orderly debate. If Vice-president Biden thinks that he is above the rules then this, by itself, automatically makes him unqualified for the office he holds.“
President Obama’s comment on Vice-president Biden unruly conduct and a lack of temper was telling. Mr. Obama said: “I am proud of Joe Biden“. Apparently, President Obama thinks that he and his running mate are above the rules. Reportedly, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the chief enforcer of the rule of law, repeated the revolutionary sentiment that it’s OK to break the rules for the (liberal) cause. And this is definitely bad news for the American people.
I invite you to check out some of my commentaries that have been circulating on the Web, for instance here: http://www.federalobserver.com/category/mark-andrew-dwyer/ and here: http://www.geocities.com/readerswrite/.
I wish you all the best in your commendable effort to give a witness of truth. By all means, please, keep “clinging” (the word that has a pejorative meaning in President Obama’s vocabulary) to the facts and reason.
Mark Andrew Dwyer
~ The Author ~
Mr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer since September 2004. Mark Andrew Dwyer’s archives at the Federal Observer can be found here
We invite you to email your comments or questions to Mr. Dwyer at firstname.lastname@example.org.