OK, just to make sure, even though we are still in the It’s a Wonderful Life season, I want to remind my allusion-impaired gentle readers that if Jimmy Stewart’s character lived, because of his virtuous actions, his hometown of Bedford Falls would remain clean and wholesome. However, if he had never been born, then it would turn into corrupt Potterville, with a Main Street lined with bars and drunks and prostitutes. Sadly, this would have been a consequence of ruthless and unfettered capitalism, so that it represents the exact opposite of the results of fiscal conservatism and merit-based advancement, but whatever.
Bookworm explains in a recent post how San Francisco became Potterville due to Leftism and liberalism. I think she is spot on.
I appreciate that Bookworm took care in expressing her objections to the excesses of the gay community. These excesses, and the mindset behind them, illuminate the sense of mission I feel about getting the Pharaoh of liberalism to let my gay and lesbian people go and make their new home in Fiscal Conservative Land. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, due to discrimination and second-class citizenship, gays and lesbians actually are extremely resourceful and self-reliant about creating their own businesses and going into entrepreneurial professions. We belong in Fiscal Conservative Land, not the Nanny State.
Another thing I like about Bookworm’s post is her temporal panorama of San Francisco from the 1960’s — when my family lived in Walnut Creek and visited my father’s parents in Berkeley and we occasionally went to San Francisco — to the present. I’m also glad she fingered the Left’s animosity toward capitalism as one of the causes of San Francisco’s decline — but Jamie Glazov’s book, United in Hate, is a much better explanation of the Left as a totalitarian movement in love with other totalitarian movements and determined to destroy capitalism than the book she references, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, which flabbergasted me by having no indication whatever that Goldberg is aware of Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer. Glazov is an intellectual heir of Eric Hoffer and brings Hoffer’s landmark work into our contemporary world, so his insights are considerably more apt than Goldberg’s.
Here is an excerpt from Bookworm’s post, “America’s Homegrown anarchic totalitarianism“:
The one thing that Jonah Goldberg’s book misses is the fact that the New Age, crystal-gazing American socialist utopia does not allow itself to control all people within its political borders. Instead, in the name of political correctness, American socialist cities have a two-tiered system: law-abiding citizens are on the receiving end of heavy-handed government control, while politically correct protected victim classes are removed from any controls whatsoever. The result is the worst of all possible worlds, with law abiding citizens beaten down both by their own government and by those whom the government allows to roam free. San Francisco provides a perfect example of this Western socialist dynamic.
San Francisco’s intense hostility to capitalism
Some of the contrasts between intense government control versus anarchy are very obvious in San Francisco. On the control side, the City’s mandates pry into every area of business and even personal life. At a macro level, the City is very, very hostile to business. It has its own minimum wage law (SF Admin. Code, Secs. 12P, 12R, & Appx. 68), which controls anyone doing business in or with the City of San Francisco. The City apparently feels it’s not a big enough burden on businesses to have the feds set wages too. The minimum wage laws are great for those who can get jobs; but lousy for those who discover that, as a result of the hostile environment, there are fewer businesses around to provide jobs.
Read the whole thing.
I just found related snark from Little Miss Attila via Instapundit about Berkeley High School ending science labs because black kids never excelled there and therefore the labs should not exist if they only benefit white kids. I gather it hasn’t occurred to anyone that then they wouldn’t be there for the next George Washington Carver or Charles R. Drew, when he or she comes along, either. I’m starting to understand the general tone of peevishness toward liberalism in the conservative commentariat.