The Logic of Liberals

Draft. Draft. Draft.

While liberals have always (at least for a century) taken the high road of intellectual thought, they may be applying flawed or incomplete logic.   This is rather obvious with the issues of economics, education, immigration, and energy.  However, in most cases the chain of reasoning is lengthy, making logical flaws difficult to isolate and making counter arguments difficult to construct.   Liberals tend to make their cases upon emotional and belief systems making it difficult for even themselves to see any flaws, much less address them. 

While the liberal views their intellectualism as the final arbiter of logical argumentation, this may not precisely hold.  Consider the chain of logical implications first from the liberal viewpoint, and then from the scope of a complete logical argument.    Let’s consider their propositional arguments, from the premises, through the logic, and then to the final conclusion(s).   What’s determined is that for liberals two common conclusions intertwine within their logic,  spending more money, with the government at the center of all activities.

  

Significant to analyzing any argument, it is important to consider both the premises, the general chain of reasoning, and the fully expressed conclusions.  We assume a common basis for the argument more-or-less agreed by both conservatives and liberals.  We look, therefore at the completeness and correctness of the arguments and the final, not intermediate conclusions.  In other cases, we consider the premises, and in at least the case of immigration where conflicted and contradictory arguments are faced by both camps.

Liberal Logic of Economics.  Economics is the bedrock of government.  Control the purse, and you control the government.  Make your argument about the money, convince the populace, and you sustain power.   Let’s look at current liberal economic logic in the USA.  It may seem simplistic, but it’s all there in six points, except the abject printing of money.  

1.   Slow economic growth implies fewer jobs
2. Fewer jobs implies lower government revenue.
3. Lower government revenue implies need for higher taxes.
4. Need for higher taxes implies higher taxation of those of resources.
5. Higher taxations on the rich implies more government revenue.
6.  More government revenue implies sustainability of government spending.

The problem is solved, at least for liberals.   However, the conservatives continue the logic with extended implications beginning after the fifth point.

6.       More government revenue implies less investment capital is available.
7.       Less investment capital available implies less investment in commerce.
8.       Less investment in commerce implies slower economic growth.
9.       Slower economic growth implies fewer jobs.

The net result for the conservative:  More taxation implies fewer jobs.   The more simplistic, i.e the intellectual liberal, logic is incomplete.  Call it Keynsian, progressive, social moralism, or the new normal, currently the liberal logic never quite completes the argument and never gets to how the jobs problems are solved.   Previously, they espoused hope that stimulus and other investment spending actions would just make this happen – magically perhaps.

Liberal logic for Green Energy Solutions.  Green energy solutions have become a center piece of the current Administration.  Hundreds of millions have been poured into green energy solutions, many without a single measurable result.  Yet, the admin is convinced of the importance of green energy and is committed to further investment in this venue.  Good or bad, there is a logic of sorts.  Let’s examine what it might be.

1.       The continued use of fossil fuels implies global warming.

2.       Global warming implies climatic decline.

3.       Climatic decline implies declining crop harvest.

4.       Declining crop harvests implies the need for non-fossil fuel solutions.

5.       Non fossil-fuel solutions implies the need for green energy solutions.

6.       Green energy solutions implies the need for supportive government intervention.

7.       Supportive government solutions implies the need for increased government revenues.

8.       The need for increased government revenues  implies the requirement for higher taxes.

9.       The requirement for higher taxes implies higher taxation of those with resources, i.e. the rich.

10.   Higher taxations on the rich implies more government revenue.

11.   More government revenue implies sustainability of government spending in this case for green energy solutions.

In this particular situation, the hapless conservative appears to be lost in the logic.  However, the premises and initial implications of the climatic scenario betray the argument completely.  It rests with the very first statement, “The continued use of fossil fuels implies global warming.”   Second, the liberal logic indirectly implies acceptance of a permanent increase of all fossil energy prices in order to make them competitive with non-competitive green alternatives.

To continue this logical strand beginning after “ 6. Green energy solutions implies the need for supportive government intervention,” the conservative argument thus proceeds…

7.       Government intervention implies the need for further basic research and a business environment supportive of sustainable energy solutions.

8.       Sustainable energy solutions implies extant new and viable products available introduced to the market.

9.       New and viable products on the market implies growth in the energy sector.

10.   Growth of the energy sector implies a decrease of dependence on foreign energy sources.

11.   A decreased dependency on foreign energy implies more jobs resulting with increased prosperity.

While scientists of various credibility stripes, and particularly by academics that know little about the thermodynamics processes of the climate affirm this is accurate, there is no substantial, incontrovertible, evidence it is actually correct.  There are anecdotes; there are climatic models partly validated using time reversal  (i.e. models that use current data to predict the past);  there is an emotional belief we are ruining our planet with coal-fired plants belching carbon dioxide and other nefarious chemicals into the atmosphere.   The arguments against these (very mathematical) models are simply that climate is an irreversible process, meaning time reversed-based conclusions must be devalued if not depracated.   Indeed, it is the liberal, lost in emotionalism, who is the hapless victim of this logical chain.  But the national press sustains the reasoning.  While the climate may be warming, it is by no means clear it is the result of fossil fuels.  The anecdotes, notwithstanding, do not measure up as evidence.

Liberal Logic of Education. Education in the USA is in rather deep trouble.  We have masses of students graduating with hardly the ability to do basic math and exact basic language skills.  We have high school dropouts at record levels.  We have US students doing poorly on international exams.   A dearth of solutions abound.  No one really knows what to do.  But the liberal has their patented resolve.  Spend more money.

1. Our schools are doing poorly implies they need governmental assistance.
2. Governmental assistance implies the need for more revenue.
3. A greater need for government assistance implies a greater need for revenue.
4. The need for higher taxes implies higher taxation of those with resources, i.e. the rich.
5. Higher taxations on the rich implies more government revenue.
6. More government revenue implies sustainability of government spending.
7.  Increased government spending on education will improve education generally.

Problem solved?  There is more.  The government, through its Rise to the Top program promotes a common core curriculum, as if changing the curriculum can change educational outcomes.  Even if the secret agenda is a national curriculum, the operational outcomes remain in doubt.   The logic here is not only incomplete but is faulty.  What can we say about a multi-billion dollar institution that is failing and promotes a change in the order topics are taught, and  the type of end-of-course exams are given?  The conservatives, on the other hand, are totally lost on this issue; they would prefer to allow local experts to determine what is best for their constituencies.   The issues of education in the USA are so profound, so conflicted, so political, and so deep, it is difficult to even scratch their surface in the few words allotted here. 

Liberal Logic of Immigration.   The profound issues of immigration are tricky.  Neither the liberals nor the conservatives know quite what to do.  The liberal idea is as usual, spend more money, but even they are uncertain the net result – except probably more votes.  Yet, even liberals want the best for our country and appear to be conflicted.  Conservatives are simply lost in this logic.

1.       A weakened economy implies fewer Jobs

2.       Fewer jobs implies a need for more jobs

3.       High unemployment and more immigration implies the job pool increases.

4.       A higher  job pool implies increasing competition for jobs, increasing unemployment, greater need for assistance

5.       All of these imply an increasing competitions for jobs.

6.       An increasing competition for jobs implies increased unemployment.

7.       Increased unemployment implies a greater need for government assistance.

8.       A greater need for government assistance implies a greater need for revenue.

9.       Need for higher taxes implies higher taxation of those of resources, i.e the rich.

10.   Higher taxations on the rich implies more government revenue.

11.   More government revenue implies sustainability of government spending – on new immigrants.

Here we have the liberal/conservative conundrum.  Liberals understand a good portion of the argument, the later portion. Conservatives agree with the earlier portion, but have trouble with the latter portion, that is, the increased taxation.  Indeed, derived from “6.  An increasing competition for jobs implies increased unemployment,” we are led to the conundrum.  The logic, while complete from an intellectual viewpoint, is incomplete from the operational viewpoint.  Nowhere in this logic is how new jobs will be generated by or be available to our newly minted citizens.   Neither liberal nor conservatives address this key point.   Even the current champion and most articulate of conservatives, Senator Marco Rubio, offers little more than “it’s the right thing to do,” and then suggests solutions on how to do it. 

 

The liberals are faced with the issue that by allowing dramatically increased immigration/naturalization, there obtains serious financial and employment issues.  In short, humanism carries a hefty price tag.   Both sides are wrapped in the politics of this massively charged issue.   The solution will unfold in Congress, and then the courts.  Difficult, this one is. 

In sum, the liberal solution almost always involves more governmental intervention, more governmental interaction, and particularly more taxation.  Moreover, the liberal wants to be involved in everything; no issue is too unimportant for their watchful eyes.  Their expertise, or good will, knows few bounds.  What is interesting in the topics given is that each involves considerable expense, all generated by increased taxation on the rich – whoever they are.   But one could argue that every proposed tax dollar is earmarked to be spent on three or more distinct venues.   This small, paradoxically large, detail is never explained by anyone.

Final note.  Liberal problem solutions are heart-felt and almost always involve more government expense.  Liberals need very much to feel they are doing the right thing, to believe they are on a higher intellectual plane, and prefer to remain oblivious to the operational aspects of any idea they may promote.   Liberals, rather than taking the intellectual plane of consideration, embrace a fully emotional argument.  Conservatives, on the other hand, consider arguments closely and try hard to complete the logic mindful of operational reality.