Skip to main content

A rebuttal to Stephen Moore's article, "The lunacy of the left"

Stephen Moore, "distinguished visiting fellow" for the conservative Heritage Foundation (yes, that's his actual title name), just published an article on the conservative Washington Times entitled, "The lunacy of the left," to which I felt the need to respond.

First off, to illustrate just how incredibly biased to the right Stephen Moore is, here are the titles of a few of his articles:

- "The Fantasy That ObamaCare 'Is Working'" (Hmm, I went from uninsured due to preexisting conditions to insured, so... Where'd I put that invisible health insurance card again?)

- "The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America" (When it comes to honesty, let's compare President Obama with the two GOP frontrunners to replace him. According to Politifact, of the 577 graded Obama statements, 278 of them have been ruled as true or mostly true (48%), while 146 have been ruled as mostly false, false, or pants on fire (26%), for a net +22%. Meanwhile, of the 226 graded Trump and Cruz statements, just 32 of them have been ruled as true or mostly true (14%), while 162 have been graded as mostly false, false, or pants on fire (72%), for a net -58%. This gives President Obama an honesty advantage of 70 points over Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Not only that, but while Politifact has graded 351 more statements made by Obama than Trump and Cruz combined, Trump and Cruz have made 22 more pants-on-fire claims than the president (31 to 9).

- "Greece Disaster Shows Unavoidable Consequences of Socialism" (Did the Great Recession then show the "unavoidable consequences" of capitalism? Sorry, just trying to follow his logic...)

- "Illinois: The Anatomy of a Failed Liberal State" (I'll one-up him. Kansas and Louisiana: The Anatomy of Failed Conservative States)

- "Hey President Obama, for Most Americans the Economy Is Still Weak" (Hey undistinguished fibbing fellow, for most fact-checkers, the economy was weak under Bush and improved under Obama)

Yeah, he's about as fair and balanced as I am moonwalking on sand during a massive hurricane while fully inebriated. Not only that, but some newspaper editors, like Kansas City Star editorial page editor Miriam Pepper, have even barred Moore's articles from being published due to his typically loose nature with facts.  So, keeping all of that in mind, let's start dissecting Moore's latest writing, "The lunacy of the left."

"The idea of American exceptionalism has been embedded in our DNA for generations. It is the faith-based belief that, as Ronald Reagan put it, America is a 'shining city on a hill.' Do modern liberals believe that?"

We're off to a great start. Not only has Stephen Moore mentioned the name Ronald Reagan, which likely won him a bet with a drunken man at a Trump rally, but he also decided it was time to pound his chest and scream, "America #1!" ...and he wonders why so many can't stand us...

"I almost never try to get into the other side's head or ascribe ill motives to those on the left. They are, I've always believed, misguided, not malign."

You mean, misguided by the the supposed (and outdated) words of an invisible all-powerful being? Misguided by radio show hosts and a cable news channel which have been deemed by fact-checkers as less accurate than horoscopes written by 5-year-olds? Misguided by major donors like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers?

"But I'm having second thoughts after listening to President Obama's defense of communism/socialism a little over a week ago when he was in Argentina. He advised young people to get behind 'what works' economically - as if there is some deep mystery here. Mr. Obama didn't misspeak. The modern left in America really has come to believe that communism, socialism, Marxism, totalitarianism, or whatever 'ism' you want to call the monopolization of power into the hands of a ruling elite, is superior to free market capitalism."

Second thoughts? I'm not sure this man had first thoughts... Declaring socialism as equivalent to communism just shows Mr. Moore's ignorance on the matter. Going even further, it's highly ironic for Moore to criticize leftists for supposedly supporting the "monopolization of power into the hands of a ruling elite," as Reaganomics, the Bush tax cuts, the Citizens United ruling, voter suppression laws, the fight against minimum wage increases, and other Republican policies have transformed this one-time republic into an oligarchy.

"The president of the United States is supposed to be the global spokesman for free enterprise. But instead of traveling to Cuba to point out to the world the decades of stagnation, deprivation, and dehumanization at the hands of Castro, and instead of using this moment in history to showcase the triumph of capitalism 90 miles away, as Mr. Reagan did so memorably at Moscow State University, Mr. Obama praises Castro's health care and education systems."

Did Stephen Moore actually listen to the president at all while he was in Cuba or did he watch a cartoon of his making, entitled, Commie Obama? I'm guessing the latter, as the president often noted how vastly different the two countries are in many respects, but tried to leave room for the two countries to work together in the future. Moore seems to be in denial about several things, including the fact that the U.S. isn't a purely capitalistic society. I can just hear him say, "Hey, tell the government to stay out of my Social Security and Medicare!"

"He (Obama) might as well have been praising Mussolini for making the trains run on time. Even more unbelievable: the media applauded."

No, I think your GOP frontrunner has done enough of that via his Twitter account...

"How far the Democratic Party has fallen. Can anyone imagine Mr. Obama, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders having the gumption or wisdom to tell Mikhail Gorbachev to 'tear down this wall?' Today's Democratic leaders and many who support them probably secretly lament that the wrong side won the Cold War."

Playing the hypothetical card, eh? That's always fun, well, and pointless. Then again, given Stephen Moore's long running history of not knowing a fact from a Community Chest card in the game of Monopoly, I suppose going the unprovable route may be his best option...

"It wasn't so long ago that leading Democrats - JFK, Harry Truman and even the AFL CIO - were staunch enemies of communism. Today there is no place for such beliefs within the 'progressive' Democratic Party. If it involves power to the state, the left is all for it - as evidenced by the rise of Bernie Sanders."

Right, because fighting against the debunked myth that is Reaganomics is the equivalent of "communism." Fighting against our republic turning into an oligarchy is apparently "communism." Fighting to prevent another Great Recession is "communism." Fighting for equal opportunity for everyone economically is "communism." Given what I've read thus far, Stephen Moore may want to watch the film A Princess Bride, for even though he continually uses the word, I don't believe he knows what communism actually means...

"But for every action, there is a reaction, and the left's lunacy has given momentum to the tumultuous uprising on the right this year. Millions of voters who support Donald Trump want our government to put America first, and focus on our own mounting problems here at home, then worry about Europe, Israel, the melting ice caps, Aids in Africa, and so on. If your house is burning down, you put out that fire and save your own children that are trapped on the second floor, before you go down the street and put the fire out at your neighbors."

It appears Mr. Moore forgot to take his crazy pills prior to writing this. He seriously wants to blame the left for the rise of Donald Trump? The GOP's demonization of minorities, immigrants, and the poor? Yeah, that's the left's fault. Bush's wars? Let's blame Obama. Right-wing ideologues painting Muslims as terrorists? That has "liberals" written all over it. Favoring the top 1% and believing their money will trickle down? Apparently Reagan was a Democrat. I'm sorry to have to break it to you, Stephen Moore, but Donald Trump was a monster of your own party's making.

"Here's just one observational data point that is admittedly anecdotal but speaks volumes about the left-right divide in America. At a typical Trump or Ted Cruz rally you will see American flags waving everywhere. These are patriotic gatherings. At Sanders events you will see some flags, but not many - because if you are a leftist it's not cool to love America. What is much cooler is wear a Che Guevara T-shirt."

So, let me get this straight, whether or not a person loves their country is dependent on whether or not they often sport the country's flag? Is that right? So, help me out here... Who is more patriotic, a group of people sporting a country's flag at a rally or a group of people fighting to give homeless veterans homes, fighting to keep our soldiers away from unnecessary wars, fighting to provide our soldiers with an education and job opportunities upon their return home? While there might not be as many flags present at a Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton rally, they fight for soldiers' and veterans' health and well-being, and that's a hell of a lot more patriotic than showcasing a We-Support-The-Troops bumper sticker while voting against our bravest men and women's best interests.

"At a Republican rally you typically meet many veterans who served our country with honor and valor. The leftists who protest at Trump rallies detest those who are wearing military uniforms and call them fascists and give the Nazi salute. I've seen it happen. I want to grab these brats and shout at them like Jack Nicholson in 'A Few Good Men': 'A simple 'thank you' would suffice.'"

I'm sorry buddy, but the only Nazi salutes (Nazi-like pledges) I've seen are at Donald Trump rallies, so try again...

"Trump voters see America losing here at home both the economic and cultural wars vital to national survival. We have $19 trillion national debt that has doubled in the last decade. We have wages flat or falling for most Americans. We have a political class that is actively trying to destroy whole industries - coal production, oil and gas, community and so many others."

Here we see Mr. Moore trying to play it both ways. He started his piece by talking about American exceptionalism, how we're the greatest country the world has ever known, and implied it's wrong for any liberal to think otherwise. Now he's admitting the country is imperfect, pointing toward our debt, and making mention of the growing wage gap. So, why the double-standard, Mr. Moore? Why is it okay for you to talk about America's imperfections, yet not okay for liberals to do so? Also, when did these stagnant wages start? 1973. Under who? Republican Richard Nixon. As a matter of fact, from the 21 years between 1973 and 1993, we had a Republican president 17 of those years. Oh, but it's the left's fault again, right?

"We have a president (along with the intellectual class) pushing a radical climate change agenda that will cost the middle class millions of jobs, but won't change the global temperature one-one hundredth of a degree. Trade deals seem to be drafted to benefit foreign workers and businesses over our own. America pays far more than its share for programs like the United Nations and NATO. Our schools put teachers, not kids, first, and they don't educate."

Radical climate change agenda? Jebus... Like I said, Stephen Moore forgot to take his meds...

"We have courts overturning the will of the people in state after state on issues like gay marriage and if you are - God forbid - for traditional marriage and refuse to bake the cake, you are chastised as a bigot. We have speech police. We have illegal immigrants who work here and live here and then wave the Mexican flag at rallies, as if to be intentionally offensive. (And I'm in favor of immigration.) Then they wonder why Americans want a wall. We have the TSA searching the underwear of infants, but let Muslims slip through because we wouldn't want to be accused of racial profiling. We have a Justice Department that wants to put people in jail for questioning the climate change 'consensus.'" 

My guess is Stephen Moore gets his "facts" from satirical websites, opinion-dominated talk shows, and a voice in his head who goes by the name Nucking Futs. People aren't being threatened jail-time for questioning climate-change; they're just being called idiots. If that's equivalent to jail-time, I have to imagine Mr. Moore has spent most of his years in the pen. As far as marriage goes, it's about equality. I'm sorry to disappoint Stephen Moore, but everyone I know who believes in gay marriage rights also believes in "traditionalists'" marriage rights. In other words, we believe in EVERYONE'S marriage rights, as opposed to some people... :: nudges Mr. Moore's right shoulder ::. Speaking of equality, I love that slight xenophobic slip of Mr. Moore's. What does the First Amendment say again, Mr. Moore? "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In other words, Muslims, just like Christians or people of any other faith, deserve equal rights in this country. Yes, even though I believe Stephen Moore's article to be preposterous to the point of being comical, the man still has the right to these opinions. So, yeah, I guess that makes me a "communist" or whatever in the hell Moore wants to call me.

"This is the same crowd that seems to prefer the economic systems in Sweden and Greece and Cuba over America's. They preach human rights, but they don't seem to understand that economic freedom is a core human right."

Yes, because the economic systems in Sweden, Greece, and Cuba are exactly the same... For Stephen Moore's next New Year's resolution, I'd like to request for him to stop committing the false equivalence fallacy (and yes, many others). Mr. Moore is right about one thing; economic freedom is a human right. The problem with his reasoning is that he and his conservative brethren believe in this unlimited economic freedom to only those whom can afford it - the top 1%, while those he's railing against believe the bottom 99% should experience the same level of economic freedom.

So, nice try, Stephen Moore, but as your reality-star-turned-GOP-presidential-front-runner would say, "You're fired."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/stephen-moore-the-lunacy-of-the-left-embracing-dic/

http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/m/stephen-moore

http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/stephen_moore_heritage_foundation_paul_krugman_kansas_city_star.php

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"