Free Markets, Free People

Watching the “progressive” left melt down over the Hobby Lobby decision

While I agree there may be far reaching implications concerning this decision and that the right might not like how all that plays out, I have got to say I have sore ribs from laughing at the hateful, screechy display put on by so-called “progressives” concerning the decision.

The first bit of nonsense they toss around is they’re being “denied” some sort of right to an abortion.  Of course, no one has denied them anything.  Planned Parenthood is ready when they are.  Abortificants are available to them through their doctor.

No the problem is they’ll have to pay for it, not someone else.  They don’t get to impose their will on others that don’t believe like they do.

And, of course, that just won’t do.  Especially when it comes to <sneer> “religious” people/companies.  Next thing you know they’ll be demanding kosher butchers sell ham and the Amish deliver goods by truck.

It is time to stem this tide of BS the left has unleashed. This cobbled up “right” to whatever they want and the equal “right” to have someone else pay for it.  The imposition of their will on others to benefit themselves.

Charles Murray explains in today’s Wall Street Journal that, in essence, what these people want is their brand of fascism imposed on all of your lesser beings and if they don’t get their way they’ll throw tantrum after tantrum:

But philosophically, the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy ( Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration ( Woodrow Wilson’s open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives). To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.

That’s not a description that Woodrow Wilson or the other leading progressive intellectuals would have argued with. They openly said it themselves.

It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today—a mind-set that produces the shutdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today’s America. Such thinking on the left also is behind the rationales for indulging President Obama in his anti-Constitutional use of executive power. If you want substantiation for what I’m saying, read Jonah Goldberg’s 2008 book “Liberal Fascism,” an erudite and closely argued exposition of American progressivism and its subsequent effects on liberalism. The title is all too accurate.

Indeed.  Murray, however, distinguishes “progressive” from “liberal”, by claiming there is quite a degree of difference between the progressive left and the liberal left:

Here, I want to make a simple point about millions of people—like my liberal-minded dinner companions—who regularly vote Democratic and who are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Along with its intellectual legacy, the Progressive Era had a political legacy that corresponds to the liberalism of these millions of Democrats. They think that an activist federal government is a force for good, approve of the growing welfare state and hate the idea of publicly agreeing with a Republican about anything. But they also don’t like the idea of shouting down anyone who disagrees with them.

They gave money to the ACLU in 1978 when the organization’s absolutism on free speech led it to defend the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. They still believe that the individual should not be sacrificed to the collective and that people who achieve honest success should be celebrated for what they have built. I’m not happy that they like the idea of a “living Constitution”—one that can be subjected to interpretations according to changing times—but they still believe in the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the president’s duty to execute the laws faithfully.

I’m not quite sure I agree but if there is a separation between the two, there is one hell of a big, wide, fuzzy border between the two.  Given the antics of the left these past few years and their frantic attempts to expand government control along with cultural change while the Democrats hold power causes me to still lump both contingencies into the same hateful mass. Afterall, as Murray points out, “liberal” is a term stolen from an era when it described a group who believed in small, non-intrusive government, the individual and his rights and capitalism.  That hardly describes “liberals” today.  In fact, at best I’d call them “progressive light”.

Anyway, something to munch on as we watch the left continue to throw their juvenile fits over a court ruling that went against them.  Now if we can only hope that the court continues to chip away at the oppressive law passed by a Democratic Congress popularly derided as ObamaCare.  With each chip and the subsequent acting out by the left, one can only hope that the more moderate in America will become less and less enchanted with their siren song.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

31 Responses to Watching the “progressive” left melt down over the Hobby Lobby decision

  • The Collective is in high freak-out mode lately, and not just over Hobby Lobby.  BIG GOVERNMENT is failing very openly and catastrophically, and people are noting it.  Voter confidence in government is in the crapper.
     
    I thought you’d find this a larf, McQ.  I read the original piece in Bloomberg yesterday.  One of the stupidest things I’d seen outside of the precincts of the moonbattery in…maybe ever.
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/libertarianism-the-new-communism.php
     
    It could have been written by Erp, it was so unsupported, unsupportable, and just inane.

    • I saw that article, Rags, and it definitely had a erpish quality about it. I thought of ripping it up, but I would have just ended up saying about what Powerline said.
       
      The biggest non sequitur that stood out for me was “Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish, when in fact cooperation is the height of human evolution.”
       
      On the first part – I’ve been libertarian all my life, and known many others on that side of the fence. Not one – not one – has ever said that “humans are wired only to be selfish”. That is an excellent erpish strawman example. Libertarians believe that self-interest in the strongest motivator for most people, but self-interest is often best served by cooperation.

      The second part is just stupid. If cooperation is the “height of human evolution”, then why does government need to coerce it all the time? Why doesn’t it just happen? Well, in fact, it does, but if a leftist acknowledged that cooperation “just happens”, then they’ve got no excuse to boss everyone around.

      • Well, see, there’s your root problem, Billy.  You are not looking at this through the proper post-modern lenses.  You have to be compelled to “co-operate”.  See, THAT is the highest form of human evolution.
         
        But, seriously, folks…  Aren’t these two idiots (it took TWO of them to get this stupid!) inadvertently describing the co-operation of MARKETS…???  The whole thing was amazing for its sophomoric quality, especially in something with Bloomberg on it.  You at least expect senior undergrad-level writing from them…

      • “then why does government need to coerce it all the time”
         
        Surely you haven’t forgotten your Marxism-Leninism  already? The reason is that the current system nurtures selfishness and punishes cooperation. We must destroy the current system and allow the “New Socialist Man” to emerge. We need to have our own “Year Zero”.

        • I thought that started when Zero was elected…  I am so confused…

  • And we can only hope that the core, conservative (mainstream) majority of the Supreme Court can remain intact through the rest of Obama’s term and outlast a couple of their liberal peers. If not, God help us.

  • Hilarious really.  Heralded as Shria law brought home to the US.
    Hyperventilating over phony facts is standard progressive policy so it’s normal that a limited ruling against government requirement transmogrifies into wholesale prevention of birth-control in the de rigueur horror show over the top progressive reaction.

    • What is most schadenfreude-A-licious is that this was predicated on a Deemocrat-sponsored, Bill Clinton-signed law that went to address a Scalia ruling on religion vis-a-vis the First Amendment…the RFRA.
       
      The salty-sweetness of their bitter tears are beyond delicious…

  • We can wait out or impeach the evil five on supreme court as no republican will ever be elected president again. Mrs. Clinton next then our first latina president! Every election cycle 5,000,000 minority kids turn 18 (voting age)  and almost all hating republicans! Also 2,000,000 angry old white conservatives go to meet their maker and give an accounting of what evil they have done. Its called demographics!

    • Ya’ know, LSD is so 1960′s.

    • Jeb Bush, the first Latino President!
      JT http://www.absenceofwit.com

    • This is like the worst Erp sock-puppet ever…

    • First Latrine President?  eh?  what did you say sonny?

    • Hey drippy, you do realize that at some point in your happy leftist fantasy, the ‘minority’ kids become the majority if it works like you’re laying it out.
      Don’t trouble yourself over that skippy,  it’s obvious long term reality isn’t your forte either before or after the current year your in.

    • Hey drippy, you do realize that at some point in your happy leftist fantasy, the ‘minority’ kids become the majority if it works like you’re laying it out.
      Don’t trouble yourself over that skippy,  it’s obvious long term reality isn’t your forte either before or after the current year you’re in.

       

      I can hardly wait till your ‘minority’ is the majority and we see if minorities are still what you pretend you worry about.

    • I wonder if you could articulate…that means to “tell us”…what “evil” was done by the Supremes yesterday?
       
      Take a breath and a purgative, and give it a try…

  • I was shocked Roberts didn’t just call it a tax or something so it would stand.
     
     

    • I don’t know which I think is worse – that someone is holding something over Roberts’ head, or he came up with his idiotic whole-cloth Obamacare rationalization on his own, with no prompting. I can’t think of a third alternative, and both of those are pretty scary.
       

    • Roberts abuses the 9th Amendment whenever possible .. so does the rest of the court system for that matter

  • I found it really sad to find out that the state of Feminism has been reduced to who pays for your contraceptives.

    • Part of being a free women who owns her own body to have your contraception paid for, don’t you get it?

       

      Damn those white male European fundamentalist religious eggs in their ovaries that want to interfere with their right to free lovin!

       

  • Wow. I may have to take to calling her “Shrillarry”
    THAT was just crazy.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIzy_mpeTPo
     
    Poor, old brain-damaged crone.

  • One cannot help but wonder whether Kristof and Reid are aware of what the Supreme Court actually does — which, as anybody who has even a fleeting grasp of American civics knows, is not to set American policy, on health or anything else, but to interpret and uphold the law. In this particular case, the justices were called to judge whether a mandate that was pushed out by the Obama administration in 2012 was in conflict with another law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that was added to the books in 1992. This being so, the degree to which those who decided the case are “experts on women’s health” is wholly immaterial. The justices are jurists not doctors — they are nine appointed attorneys whose role in the American settlement is to provide legal answers to legal questions. Man or woman; straight or gay; handsome or ugly; Jew, Catholic, or protestant — the law must remain the law, regardless of in whose name its intricacies are decided. The alternative would be disastrous. Does Harry Reid aspire to see Roe v. Wade, which was decided by nine men, overturned?
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381713/what-does-left-think-supreme-court-charles-c-w-cooke
     
    Well, most Americans have been cheated out of any understanding of civics by our education system and its masters.
     
    Plus, many of them never think.

    • Thinking is hard….what’s on cable?

    • Man or woman; straight or gay; handsome or ugly; Jew, Catholic, or protestant — the law must remain the law, regardless of in whose name its intricacies are decided.

      I think you need to check your privilege* … that is not how the law is supposed to work in our brave new world.

      * Copyright: The Progressive Borg

  • It is silly and funny to watch the histrionics (can I say that…???) by the over-wrought Collectivists. You’d think that the Supremes mandated that womyn report to impregnation stations run by Christian Fundamentalists.
     
    Hi-larry-ous…!!!

     

    • Next thing you know, women will have to buy their own food and clothing!  Outrageous!

    • The stories keep coming out – now it reminds one of them of the Taliban.
      Talk about batshirt crazy overreach.