Excercises in masochism ...

Why?

Why oh why do I do this to myself?

I learn that a 30-something PhD in "presidential politics" is on my game, and that he graduated from the University of California at Berkley, and I proceed, nay INSIST, on pressing a political discussion. By the way, he was there for his bachelor party weekend.

Where should I begin? Now while I'm certainly not going to recitre the entire 90 minutes let me give you some highlights. I referred, not in pssing sacharrin style but with earnest intent that Obama is definitionally a neo-Marxist. Which he of course denied. But then informed me, and I quote: "Marxism is essentially about equal opportunity." No, I explained, it's about equal outcomes, not opportunity. At which point the phrase was uttered by he that I would hear again no less than 3 dozen times in 90 minutes - "Trust me, I wrote an entire paper on this." Oh, well, why didn't you say so, you put pen to paper, well it must be true then. The absolute dismisiveness in tone and thought directed at me, whom he mistook for unwashed simply because I am unpublished, was thicker than War and Peace. My friend, I went on, I realize you're not used to siting down in a recreational setting with others that have also read the Communist Manifesto, but the "opportunity" you speak of is opportunity defined by the ideology, thus the state, and not the individual, which ultimately means that the outcome is defined by the state, i.e. equality of outcome. And while I am at it, if Marx was so "fair", so laudable, why are you going to such great lengths to convince me that Obama is NOT a Marxist? That one set him back for a second ... we moved on to health care.

"Can you name me another industrialized Western nation that DOESN'T offer public health care." To which I responded, "no." And added my own question - can you name an industrialized Western nation, or ANY nation regardless of classification, that has advanced treatment and medicine superior to that of the US? Can you name one whom enjoys superior economic or military status? "Well that is separate and away from health care." Really? Or is that portion of the DNA within our character which rejects socialized medicine also responsible for the superpower status we now enjoy, in other words is that rejection of a public option but an example of how our notions of government and governance has enhanced the human condition more in the last 233 years then in the previous 5000? He responded by telling me the NHS (National Health Service) approval rating in the UK, which he claims is 85%. We went on to Reagan ...

"Reagan raised taxes 8 times. All in a recession too." Now I admit I thought he would trip me up if I simply answered with a flat "False!", and cite some obscure FCC fee that appears on your phone or cable bill. So, I simply asked him what the top marginal rate was at Reagan's ascension (it was almost 70%) and what it was when he left office (which was roughly 39%). It is indisputable that he cut taxes, and doubled receipts to the National Treasury, thus proving in the real world that the Laffer Curve Theory was correct. That cutting taxes RAISES revenue because the result is the creation of more tax payers rather than more tax law. We moved to cycle & hammer tee shirts ...

I asked him, given he lives in Santa Barbara, why these 17 tear old children of yuppies are fascinated with spending their capitalist parent's money on Soviet tees and Che Rivera shirts, not to mention a Mao & Stalin pictorial belt (yes, a belt for one's pants) I witnessed first hand at my own local mall? I submitted that the cycle and hammer should be AS offensive to democratic societies as the Swastika. He of course disagreed, stating that Marx never murdered anyone, and those were the regimes of Lenin and Stalin et al. I noted that Marxism's end game IS INHERENTLY "Stalinism" because it conflicts with natural law, but putting that aside our question is centered around symbolism, not Marx, and that symbol represented a murderous, repressive regime for 70 years, responsible for the murder of nearly five times that of the National Socialist Party in Germany, so why would he not be just as offended? He interrupted me with a question on doubling down on soft 15 against a 5 and we didn't return to the subject.

We called last shoe and as that shoe came to a close he offered his hand and noted: "Let me leave you with this - just don't call people on the left, people you disagree with, anti-American or unpatriotic. There;'s too much of that on the right." To be honest I find their singular sensitivity to that claim curious, because I've never done such a thing nor witnessed any other member of the "right" do so. In return I replied, "Well let ME leave YOU with this - either the Founding Fathers were right or Obama is, there's no in between." Which got wild applause from his entourage. He asked which Founding Father? I noted Jefferson, and the authors of the Federalist papers, Madison & Hamilton. He immediately noted Hamilton's avocation of a central bank, which got my eyes to roll, I mean as if my beef with Obama centers around his support for a central bank, come on already. So I refined that oft repeated phrase of mine: "Well then. Either the conclusions drawn at the Constitutional Convention are correct, or Obama is."

He said I should watch less Fox News, and politely left.

I learned 2 very valuable things. One, although I rarely do it anyway I will NEVER AGAIN attempt to lend credibility to my argument by prefacing it with the phrase: "I wrote a paper on this." That is THE MOST obnoxious statement as a point of argument one could ever hear and I regret I used it in my youth once or twise. The facts must speak for themselves. I mean to tell you I listened to Dr. Thomas Sowell on the radio today and not once did he preface his statements with a statement about his degrees or writing, and this is a man that's published 43 books. Secondly, I realized that if you go into researching history in order to affirm your political ideology, rather than inform it, you get the man I argued with tonight.

He picks a school that is simpatico. Courses and professors that are the same. Surrounds himself with colleagues that are, and simply dismisses the average American as (and he actually said this): "unable to comprehend nuance." Realize now that he says this while engaged in a nuance laced conversation with an "average American." An academic whom believes to his core that Americans are simply incapable of making self beneficial decisions on their own behalf ... sounds like the job qualification for "CZAR" if you ask me.