Make Way for Mini-Labor

The Democrat party is an amalgam of special interest groups — environmentalists, trial lawyers, minorities, college professors, and labor unions, for example. All of these groups, however, are not equally crucial to the survival of the party. Far and away the most important, of course, is organized labor.

The British equivalent to our Democrat party is the Labour party. If there were truth in labeling, that would be the name of the Democrat party. Only the spelling would change.

The Democrat party has numerous reasons to be worried. Possibly the biggest is the degree to which it is dependent on organized labor for its continued success and possibly even its existence. Where would Democrats be without unions, and vice versa? As much as they trumpet the value of diversity, Democrats are dangerously under-diversified.

Only labor unions have the ability to automatically and involuntarily extract campaign funds from their members. Unions have become the equivalent to a guaranteed income for the Democrat party.

Automatic payroll deduction makes unions qualitatively different from any other Democrat support group. Republican governors are currently making great progress in rescinding automatic payroll deduction for public employees in several states.

There is little or no difference between the goals of labor unions and the Democrat party. Their political philosophies are indistinguishable. Both, for example, view people not as individuals but rather as members of groups, all of whom are to have equal incomes, regardless of effort or merit. Although both Democrats and unions would vigorously deny being socialists, both are strongly sympathetic to socialistic ideals.

Much of the most destructive legislation of the past eighty years has been the products of the unholy alliance between the Democrat party and organized labor. Besides being far and away the greatest source of campaign funds, unions have provided a dependable army of disciplined foot soldiers for the Democrat party.

Their alliance has been a major factor in the success of both. The unions rely on the Democrats to bend the rules in their favor — being exempted from anti-trust and restraint of trade regulations, for example. Everyone else and the economy end up worse off. Unions are rarely prosecuted for widespread corruption, threats of violence, and blatant intimidation. They have been allowed to play by a different set of rules.

Democrats need unions to deliver money and votes, unions need Democrats to deliver legislation that works in their interest. As both organized labor and the Democrat party decline in power, what each can deliver for the other will diminish. Each side of the symbiotic relationship must have power and vitality in order to keep the relationship working.

If the Democrat party finds itself in the minority for an extended period of time, it will be unable to deliver the legislation. The energy necessary to propel the system will peter out. In fact, it’s already begun. Democrats were unsuccessful in passing “card check” even when they had majorities in both the House and Senate. Unions are not happy about that.

Organized labor is 100 percent devoted to the Democrat party. Neither should be at all surprised that Republicans are now working to diminish the power of unions. It is only natural for Republicans to be seeking to weaken their opponents’ basic support apparatus. Someone should remind Democrats, “Live by the sword, die by the sword.”

Less than seven percent of private-sector workers now belong to unions. That is a number that probably scares the hell out of Democrats. Thirty-six percent of government workers are unionized. If public-sector history repeats private-sector trends, the implications are profound. As Washington Post columnist, Robert Samuelson, put it, “Big Labor became Little Labor. If public-sector unions fail, Little Labor could become Mini-Labor.” I would only add — and the once powerful Democrat party will become the Mini-Democrat party. It’s way too soon to know for sure, but for Democrats it could be that the party’s over.

____________________

◼ Make Way for Mini-Labor March 4, 2011

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Prerequisites to True Freedom in the Middle East

There are several profound lessons in the specific event that is thought to be what triggered the spreading unrest in the Middle East. Much can be learned from the particulars of what happened and the fact that they have resonated so widely. The event and its ramifications were the subject of a recent 60 Minutes segment.

The following is how Wikipedia summarized what happened:

Twenty-six year old Mohamed Bouazizi had been the sole income earner in his extended family of eight. He operated a purportedly unlicensed vegetable cart for seven years in Sidi Bouzid 190 miles south of Tunis. On December 17, 2010 a policewoman confiscated his cart and produce. Bouazizi, who had such an event happen to him before, tried to pay the 10-dinar fine (a day’s wages or about 10 USD). In response the policewoman slapped him, spat in his face, and insulted his deceased father. A humiliated Bouazizi then went to the provincial headquarters in an attempt to complain to the local municipality officials. He was refused an audience. Without alerting his family, at 11:30 a.m. and within an hour of the initial confrontation, Bouazizi returned to the headquarters, doused himself with a flammable liquid and set himself on fire. Public outrage quickly grew over the incident, leading to protests. Bouazizi died on January 4, 2011.

Apparently a lot of people in the region identified with Mr. Bouazizi’s frustrations. Anti-government demonstrations in Tunisia inspired similar demonstrations in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Dictators who have ruled for decades are wondering who’s next.

It would not be possible to generalize about the various objectives of hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in a number of different countries. Replacing dictators with democratically elected governments seems to be one goal. Political freedoms such as freedom of speech and assembly are another likely objective.

However, it was not specifically political freedom that drove Mohamed Bouazizi to his desperate act. Rather, it was the absence of economic freedom. His last words before setting himself aflame were, “How do you expect me to make a living?”

Economic freedom is at least as important as political freedom, particularly in practical, day-to-day terms. Your freedoms to earn a living and freely engage in voluntary exchange are at least as important as your freedom to vote or freedom of speech.

The government took from Mr. Bouazizi his ability to earn a living. It arbitrarily took from him, and his customers as well, the freedom to engage in voluntary exchange. That is obnoxious interference with a most fundamental human endeavor. What could be a more basic economic activity than operating a vegetable cart in a village market?

It has been reported that the unemployment rate among college graduates in Tunisia and Egypt is 50 percent. Dictatorships smother the human spirit in numerous ways. Millions of people who want to be gainfully employed cannot find jobs. Centrally controlled economies are functionally incapable of delivering authentic full employment.

Human rights are inextricably connected with property rights. As Ayn Rand observed many years ago, “Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality–to think, to work and keep the results–which means the rights to property…. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. The man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.” Rand could well have had in mind someone like Mohamed Bouazizi when she wrote those words.

Each year the Heritage Foundation computes a “property rights index”:

A subcomponent of the Index of Economic Freedom, the property rights index measures the degree to which a country’s laws protect private property rights, and the degree to which its government enforces those laws. The index also assesses the likelihood that private property will be expropriated and analyzes the independence of the judiciary, the existence of corruption within the judiciary, and the ability of individuals and businesses to enforce contracts.

In the Mideast, Israel has a property rights index of 70, the highest in the region. Egypt’s index is 50, and Libya’s is 10. (The U.S. has an index of 85.) Raising their property rights index should be a top priority for the revolutionaries in the region. What drove Mr. Bouazizi over the edge was the confiscation of his property.

Lack of dependable property rights is a major deterrent to investing. An investment is a current expenditure for a future benefit. Reliable property rights are one of the best ways to create a predictable future.

Whether or not economic freedom is important is one of the dividing lines between liberals and conservatives. Liberals never met a regulation they didn’t like. They’re strong advocates of rent control, minimum-wage laws, and oil and gas drilling bans, for example. They believe our problems result from too few regulations rather than too many. They generally see nothing wrong with countless diminutions of property rights.

In the Middle East, as well as other parts of the world, an absolute prerequisite to true progress is the reduction of government power. The dead hand of government regulation and control is smothering human potential. If books such as The Wealth of Nations, Capitalism and Freedom, and The Road to Serfdom became widely read in the Mideast, it would greatly improve the chances for meaningful and lasting progress.

I sincerely hope that people there as well as elsewhere achieve their goal of democratically elected governments. However, even if they do, it will not assure economic freedom. The U.S. and other Western countries enjoy a high degree of democracy, but there are still far too many limitations on economic freedom and property rights.

Constrictions of economic freedom are destructive wherever they occur. Petty tyrants like the policewoman and city officials in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia exist almost everywhere in the world. They maliciously and gleefully destroy wealth creation and the human spirit.

Almost any significant endeavor you attempt in the U.S. will necessitate having to deal with mindless regulations, interminable delays, and brain-dead bureaucrats. An oil worker who has no job because of the Obama administration’s illegal drilling moratorium could well ask, “How do you expect me to make a living?”

____________________

◼ Prerequisites to True Freedom in the Middle East February 25, 2011

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

What Defines Our Differences?

What is the encompassing issue that divides liberals and conservatives?

Consider, for example, the following debates: socialism vs. a free-market economy, higher taxes vs. lower taxes, more regulations vs. deregulation, bigger government vs. smaller government, federal control vs. state and local control, government ownership vs. private property, government-run health insurance vs. private health insurance, or coercion vs. voluntary exchange. All of these debates are different applications of the same principle. What’s at the bottom of the difference between each of the two positions?

The common element in all these debates is this — do we want power and control to be centralized or decentralized? Should control be in the hands of politicians and bureaucracies or individuals and private entities?

For example, think about what actually happens when your taxes are raised. Your control over your own life is diminished, the power of politicians is increased, and control is centralized.

The most commonly used words to describe the two sides of the divide are liberal and conservative. However, the words themselves do not accurately reflect what liberals believe or what conservatives believe. They are not good descriptors. Liberals aren’t really liberal and conservatives aren’t really conservative. Those terms do not help either side understand and define what they believe. The labels “left” and “right” offer even less guidance than liberal and conservative.

Furthermore, the terms have evolved over time. Those who would have described themselves as liberal a hundred years ago would today be called conservative. On the other hand, centralized and decentralized are words that maintain their meanings relatively well.

The centralized-decentralized spectrum closely parallels the tyranny vs. freedom spectrum. Having control over our choices is essentially the definition of freedom. One of Milton Friedman’s most popular books was titled Free to Choose. Friedman saw clearly that freedom is fundamentally about choosing. Another of his influential books was titled Capitalism and Freedom. In that book he explained why true and lasting freedom is a practical impossibility under socialism.

A central difference between liberals and conservatives revolves around the issue of individual responsibility. The more we take the power to choose away from individuals, the more we diminish the meaning of, and opportunity for, individual responsibility. If you do what you do because you’re forced to, are you exercising morality? Are you responsible for your actions? The most insidious result of liberalism is that when control is centralized, so is morality.

There is what could be called the logistics of information — having information at the right place at the right time. Leaving control in the hands of individuals leaves it closest to the information and incentives required for efficient decision making.

No one can know as much as you do about your goals and priorities. Even if you assume that Harry Reid and his fellow lawmakers are smarter than you are, does it follow that they should make your choices for you? It’s not very efficient if information has to make a round trip from you to Washington, D.C. and back.

Not only is the best information held by individuals, so are the most powerful incentives. It’s only natural that you will work harder for your own goals than for someone else’s. This is one of the main reasons why free market economies are by far the most powerful generators of prosperity and economic growth.

The Heritage Foundation’s recently released 2011 Index of Economic Freedom once again confirms the almost perfect correlation between freedom and economic vitality. Terry Miller, one of the survey’s authors, confirms that the freer economies are “more efficient at protecting the environment, better at improving health, and better… in enhancing life satisfaction and overall happiness.” Rather than “spreading the wealth” as Mr. Obama wants to do, we would be better off if we spread the control.

When making choices with their own money, individuals are most motivated to make careful decisions that produce the desired results. Individuals don’t typically spend their own money on mini-versions of “pork-barrel projects.”

If choices are made for you, you will not automatically agree with them. Consequently, centralization always involves force.

Most people have probably not thought about controversial political issues along the lines of centralized and decentralized. Nevertheless, it is probably the best way to frame the debate for a number of reasons.

The centralization-decentralization framework is the most inclusive way to categorize the issues. Framing the debate in this way makes it possible to resolve a whole category of issues rather than countless specific ones and win the debate wholesale rather than retail.

The framework could essentially be thought of as a compass when assessing, for example, proposed legislation. Besides asking, “Is it constitutional?” we could also ask, “Does it centralize or decentralize control?”

Should we begin calling liberals “centralists” and conservatives “decentralists”? Although those aren’t words with much pizzazz, using them, or at least keeping them in mind, would definitely go a long way in making it clear what we’re arguing about.

One big advantage of using the centralism/decentralism terminology is that the words have little or no emotional baggage. The words liberal and conservative carry with them a number of assumptions and stereotypes. These are serious impediments to rational debate.

If you ask, “Are you a centralist or a decentralist?” you are more likely to start a discussion rather than trigger a defensive reaction. Maybe it would even add some “civility” to the debate, if you should care about that kind of thing. It’s also not a bad question to ask yourself to help determine what you believe and why.

____________________

◼ What Defines Our Differences? January 21, 2011

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Lessons From the Lame-Duck Tax Rates Battle

n the recent debate about ending or prolonging the Bush tax rates, the Democrats subtly staked out a new fiscal doctrine — not increasing tax rates costs the government money and increases the deficit.

What we heard ad nauseam from President Obama and congressional Democrats was that keeping the Bush rates in effect for those earning more than $250,000 will “cost” the government $700 billion in lost revenue over the next ten years and increase the federal debt by the same amount. That supposedly is the difference in revenue generated by the top income Bush rate (35 percent) relative to the Clinton era top rate of 39.6 percent.

The Bush tax rates had been in effect for seven years and represent what had become the status quo. Although they were originally passed with an expiration date, that hardly makes them unique in any meaningful sense. Since tax rates have been increased and decreased numerous times in the past, no one could assume they are ever permanent, whether they have built-in expiration dates or not.

The top rate decreased under President Reagan (from 70 percent to 28 percent), increased to 31 percent under President G.H.W. Bush, increased to 39.6 percent under President Clinton, and decreased to 35 percent under George W. Bush.

If we are going to calculate revenue lost when tax rates are not increased by 4.6 percent, why stop there? Following the Democrat logic, it “costs” the government money whenever taxpayers are allowed to keep any of their earnings. Accordingly, any tax rates below 100 percent on everyone are costing the government money and adding to the national debt.

This Democrat position reveals a profound difference in fundamental beliefs between liberals and conservatives. For liberals, the basic premise is that all wealth is, or should be, the property of government or the collective. That’s their starting point.

The basic conservative belief is that wealth belongs to those who created it. Conservatives believe tax increases damage the economy. Conservatives are much more concerned about the health of the overall economy than they are about the well-being of the government.

The Democrats desperately need to believe that all wealth rightfully belongs to the government. They have a bottomless pit of wonderful things they want to spend the money on. Their avarice defines their ethic. Big-government Democrats have a desperate need for money. Wealthy people have money. Ergo, go get it!

The Democrats implicitly assumed that, for those earning more than $250,000, the Clinton era tax rates are “the way it’s spozed to be.” They projected federal tax receipts under the assumption that those rates would be reinstated. In anticipation of that revenue, they spent the money. In fact, they spent a lot more than that. As usual, the Democrats created their own problem by spending revenue before it existed. They literally could not wait to get their hands on your money. Republicans, of course, were not innocent bystanders in this shameful behavior.

One interesting inconsistency the Democrats maneuvered themselves into was their less than total rejection of the Bush tax rates. The rate structure they wanted was a Bush/Clinton hybrid, what you could call a political Prius, or maybe a genetically modified rate structure. They wanted the Bush rates for incomes up to $250,000, and the Clinton rates thereafter.

The Democrats have maintained for years that there was absolutely nothing good about anything George W. Bush did while he was in office. We were told that the only people he cared about were his rich cronies. Apparently that was not the whole story.

Something else revealed in the tax rate debate is that many on the left, including some in Congress and the administration, despise anyone earning high incomes. You can almost see their eyes bulging when they say “tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.” The left want these people not just to provide additional revenue, they want them punished. They apparently consider upper income tax rates as more of a fine than a tax. Exactly what millionaires and billionaires are guilty of is never specified.

Democrat politicians will rarely admit what they really want top income tax to be. It would be great if they could be up front about how much progressivity they want in their heart of hearts. They don’t want to tell us that, of course, because they are well aware of how politically devastating it would be.

One exception is Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton. In a recent column he advocated a top rate of 70 percent. He did not specify how much it’s costing the government not to have a 70 percent top rate.

The expiration or retention of the Bush tax rates has not been permanently resolved. The rates have been extended for two years only. This brief extension adds to the climate of uncertainty that is one of the biggest obstacles to economic recovery. Furthermore, in two years or less we will again be treated to a new round of class warfare.

Republicans were able to buy time for the full range of the Bush tax rates, but they had to hold the country’s entire middle class hostage to do so (according to President Obama). They need to be well prepared for what we know will happen two years from now. If the economy is recovering by then, they will not be able to use the argument that you can’t increase taxes in a recession. There are numerous reasons why raising taxes is a bad idea and the Republicans better be ready to articulate them.

____________________

◼ Lessons From the Lame-Duck Tax Rates Battle January 6, 2011

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Security Screening and Probability Denial

“Probability is the very guide of life.” — Joseph Butler, 18th century theologian

The Transportation Security Administration’s controversial passenger screening policies demonstrate just how distorted our priorities have become. We have maneuvered ourselves into being more terrified of being accused of racism than we are of death.

Political correctness is the equivalent of a societal lobotomy. Political correctness prevents us from using basic logic and common sense when we make large and small choices. We know what we need to do to make ourselves safer but we’re in denial about what we know.

As John Smith, a columnist for Las Vegas Review-Journal, asked in a recent column, “Patting down my disabled daughter makes us safer?” The answer to that question is no, and everyone knows the answer is no. The obvious absurdity of our policies is the backdrop of why so many travelers are frustrated and angry.

How ridiculous is it to pretend that all passengers have an equal probability of carrying weapons or explosives? Our rejection of profiling is a rejection of behavior that we use so much we lose sight of how essential it is in our lives. The TSA is behaving as if there are no outward signs of a passenger’s likelihood of committing a terrorist act.

Our policy makers are pretending that probability is irrelevant in making choices and designing policies. Taking into account probability is second nature to any normal person. If probability didn’t matter, you might as well go fishing on dry land as on a lake or river.

When we refuse to consider probability we severely reduce the probability of achieving our objectives—in this case preventing the violent deaths of innocent people. Refusal to consider probability in making choices is a symptom of insanity. A strong intuitive sense of probability is an indicator of intelligence.

Political correctness is making us look like fools who don’t even have an instinct for self-preservation. We demonstrate a lack of seriousness. Is that a message we want to send to our enemies?

We do not have unlimited resources at our disposal to combat terrorism (or any other objective, for that matter). Resources we devote to preventing low probability problems are unavailable for high probability problems. There is no free lunch and there is no free PC. Patting down 80-year-old ladies and three-year-old children is actually making us less safe.

Even animals, whether by instinct or experience, consider probability. Predators look for prey where they have had previous success. That’s where the probability for future success is highest. Taking probability into account is essential to their survival.

The public’s strong reaction to the latest TSA policies goes beyond scanners and body searches. Nobody appreciates being inconvenienced or feeling violated. What makes it especially infuriating is feeling that it is not necessary or useful and that there are more effective alternatives staring us right in the face.

The traveling public has shown admirable patience with screening procedures to date. People are far more tolerant of necessity than they are of stupidity. Much of the travelling public seems to have reached the conclusion that the new security measures are more the result of cowardice than necessity.____________________

◼ Security Screening and Probability Denial December 2, 2010

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Understanding the O’Donnell Voter

Establishment politicians think voters made a big mistake when they nominated Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware primary for Senate. Were the voters irrational or are the political pros just not seeing the whole picture?

Maybe it would help the political experts if they considered the situation from the perspective of a basic tool of probability theory — “expected value.” Expected value can be an immensely useful concept, especially in the context of decision-making. It is the payoff of some outcome times the probability of it happening. For example, the expected value of winning $5 if a coin flip results in a “heads” is $2.50. Any good poker player is at least intuitively skillful in calculating expected value.

Now apply that concept to analyzing the thinking of voters in the O’Donnell vs. Castle primary contest. The “experts” (Karl Rove, most notably) told voters that even though they might prefer O’Donnell, she would not be able to win in the November general election. According to the pundits, it simply is not possible for a conservative to win in a liberal-leaning state like Delaware. They think nominating O’Donnell reduces the probability of Republicans gaining majority control of the Senate.

Now assume that voters put some credence in the predictions of the analysts and believed that the probability of O’Donnell winning the general election was lower than Castle’s chances would have been. Those are the relative probabilities, but what are the relative values of the two possible outcomes?

Voters may have perceived relatively little difference in results between Castle or a Democrat winning in November. An event with a high probability still has a low expected value if the payoff is low. The voters could well have been acting logically and rationally by going with the long-shot. They were taking a calculated risk.

Voters simply did not place much subjective value on helping someone get elected just because he calls himself a Republican. The voters wanted to aim higher. They are extremely concerned and worried about the direction career politicians are taking the country. Their objective goes well beyond just maximizing the number of politicians with an “R” behind their names.

Castle’s biggest asset, supposedly, was experience. Unfortunately for him experience is not perceived as a plus in the minds of today’s voters. Because of the disgust about what politicians have done with their power, experience and incumbency have virtually become negative qualifiers. Chris Coons, O’Donnell’s opponent in the general election, is also touting his greater experience as a campaign theme. That might or might not work for him.

Voters may also have been skeptical about the predictions of the experts. There have been numerous electoral surprises since the beginning of the year, starting with the Scott Brown victory in liberal Massachusetts. The “experts” have been wrong as many times as they have been right. It’s plain for all to see that their predictive model is deeply flawed. When there is this amount of uncertainty, you might as well go with your gut.

One factor that will make a profound difference in the general election across the country is the “intensity gap.” Some polls are showing an unprecedented 25 percent advantage for Republicans.

That large a difference in enthusiasm could have such an impact on turnout that all the close races across the country could end up in the Republican column. An O’Donnell candidacy provides the opportunity for the Delaware voters to be included in the nationwide tide against incumbents and politics as usual. Candidates such as Mike Castle are not the kind who could ever generate much voter excitement.

O’Donnell has received an inordinate amount of attention from the main-stream media, most of it unfavorable. “Saturday Night Live” and late-night comedians are having a field day with her. Judging from recent history, however, it’s not clear whether such attention and ridicule will help or hurt her. She is certainly not going to suffer from lack of name recognition.

No one can say at this point if Christine O’Donnell will win in the general election. According to the polls, the odds are still against her. The Democrat party, however, is reportedly spending a significant amount of money on the Coons campaign. If O’Donnell has no chance of winning, what are they worried about? Why waste their money?

All things considered, it is not at all clear that Delaware’s primary voters didn’t know what they were doing. One thing is clear — they unquestionably converted a contest that would have been a yawner into something worth watching.

____________________

◼ Understanding the O’Donnell Voter October 1, 2010

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

How to Defeat Liberals

If we listen up, liberals are telling us how they can be defeated. The challenge for conservatives is to listen closely and build our strategies accordingly.

Recently conservatives have been making major strides in the battle for the hearts and minds of voters. Liberalism in its various manifestations — Democrats, global warmists, organized labor, for example — are hemorrhaging support and influence. Conservatives are on the ascendency.

Liberals and Democrats are dispirited and in disarray. They are rapidly losing support and their reactions are making matters even worse for them. By analyzing why this is happening, conservatives can keep them stumbling backwards and be even more effective in the future. The political battle will go on long after the November elections. Why have conservatives been successful, and what can we do to build and continue to gain support?

One of the keys is to remember that in any battle strategy, “intelligence” is crucial. Knowledge of the enemy, his strengths and weaknesses, is often the deciding factor in who prevails. Football teams, for example, expend great effort “scouting” their future opponents. The “game plan” is largely based on what’s in the scouting report.

What, for example, are liberals telling us about themselves? Why, for instance, do they accuse tea partiers and conservatives in general of being racists? Partly it’s because that’s all they’ve got. They are frustrated and out of ammunition. It is a clear indicator of their weakness and lack of sound ideas.

Liberals are telling us what they fear. Let’s give it to them. Let their squirming and discomfort be our guide. When they squeal like stuck pigs, stick them again. It’s not just effective, it’s fun!

For example, one of Rush Limbaugh’s most effective and influential innovations is his use of audio clips and reading quotations of liberals. This is not something that had not been done before, but he definitely has taken the practice to new levels. Rush turns the words of his political opponents against them and demonstrates the absurdity and inconsistency of what they say and believe. He listens carefully to what they say, takes it seriously, logically dissects it, and then shows just how nonsensical it is. This is not what liberals want to happen. They would prefer that no one actually think about the things they say and do.

Rush is a teacher and most of his classroom materials are provided free of charge by his opponents. This is, no doubt, one of the things about Rush that drives them crazy and makes him an object of their hatred. Also driving them crazy is one of Rush’s favorite riffs, “Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.”

When Democrats and their enablers say something, our challenge is to step back and decipher what they say. What’s even more important than their intended message is the “meta-message.” The website Enclyo defines meta-message as “A message about a message…Meta-messages are higher level messages about: 1. The type of message being sent. 2. The state/status of the messenger. 3. The state/status of the receiver. 4. The context in which the message is being sent.” We can use an awareness of their meta-messages — that their reactions are signs of weakness, for example — to our advantage.

The U.S. is without doubt a center-right country. Part of the proof of this is that even Democrat candidates try to sound like conservatives when they are in tough election fights. Here in California Jerry Brown’s campaign commercials make it sound like he has joined the tea party. Across the country Democrat candidates are distancing themselves from the liberal policies of the Obama administration. Liberals cannot be open about what their beliefs and policy objectives actually are.

Liberals have to hide the fact that they’re liberals. Why can’t they admit and be open about who they are and what their real objectives are? One reason is their realization that voters are not nearly as socialistic as they are.

Conservatives do not have to hide the fact that they’re conservative. Conservatives are proud to be conservative and need to realize that they are playing in a friendly environment. They have the home-field advantage and do not need to act like underdogs. Too many conservatives seem to have self-esteem issues. Conservatives have ideas that people are buying, liberals don’t.

Liberals have also shown that they can’t stand clarity. They don’t really want to communicate, they want to obfuscate. The latest and somewhat comical example is Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, claiming that the term “global warming” is a “dangerous misnomer.” He wants to replace it with “global climate disruption.” If we can’t figure out ways to exploit that kind of nonsense, we need to be trying harder.

Liberalism is essentially the “muddled-talk express.” Political correctness is about as helpful to communication as a mouthful of marbles. We need to answer their wussy double-talk with clear, muscular words that actually mean something. (The Urban Dictionary defines “wuss” as “characterized by being, feeble, cowardly, and generally no fun.”)

You may have noticed lately that liberal commentators can’t resist offering advice to Republicans. Such advice is not offered in good faith. They are not concerned about the well-being of the Republican Party. Whenever liberals give advice and sympathy, do the opposite. They do not wish us well.

Democrats are scared out of their wits that the Republican Party might stand for something. Democrats love liberal Republicans. They can be even more useful to them than liberal Democrats.

The above are only representative of the universe of opportunities available to conservatives. A political-philosophical war is underway and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Conservatism can win the war, but we will need to employ every advantage we possibly can. And the more fun we have in the process the more likely we are to keep up the intensity. Liberals certainly don’t seem to be having much fun lately.

____________________

◼ How to Defeat Liberals September 24, 2010

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.