What’s Wrong with the World

No, just more liberals wishing really, really hard, and then marketing.

Change? You might get change only after he takes your dollars.

Media bias? What media bias?

My opinion as a humor scholar: there is a form of near-humor that is only funny when one is drunk or has taken leave of their senses. I think this is flight-from-reason humor.

The Chicken

@Concealed Domesticated Fowl:

After having conversed with members of the university crowd, incognito of course, I have come to the conclusion that this is, disturbing though it may be, a sincere act of trying to "rehabilitate" Reagan at the same times as siphon off his popularity onto the confounded President Obama. Flabbergasted though I was by the searing pains of cognitive dissonance, it occurred to me that this is, in fact, standard operating procedure for the liberal.

p Reagan was a popular, charismatic president, and retains emotive power to this very day.
q Only left-liberals can be popular and/or charismatic.
∴ Reagan was, in fact, a left-liberal.

Who said I was domesticated (or housebroken)??

The Chicken

Carl Linnaeus did.

Chicken = Gallus gallus domesticus

Well let's see, before he became President, Reagan had already had successful careers in radio, sportsbroadcasting, union leadership, corporate marketing and the governorship of California. Not perfect careers, but undeniably successful ones. Even our liberals have come around to his virtues in keeping the US out of a major war: He was a peacemaker, despite all their ugly efforts to tell us otherwise. That he did this without giving an inch on principle to the depravity of Communism makes this all the more remarkable.

Who wouldn't want to bask in the reflected glory of this great man?

That's well-stated, Paul. We should also not ever let them forget how totally, how categorically, how fanatically the left hated Ronald Reagan. They would like very much to forget it, and not least because of how conspicuously small and false Obama--the left's own petty counterfeit version of the Great Communicator--really does appear next to him.

Regan and Obama are similar like a jack hammer and a soprano - both make a sound, but which would you rather have perform Rigaletto?

Let's just call the photo cover Obama's Forest Gump moment.

The Chicken

p.s. How many masked chickens did Linneaus know? We are gallus gallus maskticus.

Well said, Sage.

Wasn't it Linus van Pelt who said: "All gallus are divided in three parts"? Which is kind of how I take my galluses. One part humor, and then 2 chicken halves.

You know, usually they use a cardboard cutout for a celebrity like the Prez, and then your average no-name takes a picture standing next to the cardboard. In this one, Mr. Obama appears to be your average no-name pal who wants his picture taken with the Prez. Talk about cheesy. Fortunately for Mr. Obama, he can declaim all responsibility for this, even while raking in the benefits (if any). That's the benefit of having an "independent press" in your corner..."It's a scoreless game so far, the left is ahead."

Now, now...you can catch more flies with a teaspoon of honey than a gallus of gall.

The Chicken

BL has some apt comments,

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/02/ronald-reagan-the-president-who-sent-america-off-the-rails.html#more

Yeah, al, especially his nutcase first paragraph:

Today is the centenary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, certainly the most significant U.S. President in my lifetime, and the one most responsible for the long, downward spiral in sanity and decency that has marked the last 30 years in the United States.

I'm wondering what that cover would look like if Obama spoke of Reagan as Leiter does. He'd probably be decked out like St. Michael, running Reagan through with a spear, as seen here.

Oh, boy, BL is funny.

His predecessors, however, basically accepted, and expanded, the peace that FDR made between the ruling class and the vast majority; Reagan began to dismantle it.

Meaning: "we rule and tell you what to think, and you follow along like good little worker ants." Naturally, Reagan rejected this idea of government, instead saying that Americans should think for themselves.

His real legacy is still not determined.

Meaning, whether his policies will be returned to government and thus succeed in helping America become a sound nation again, or whether knuckleheads will refuse consider them and damn America to full-on failure.

His foreign policy does not merit much comment, since it is not what distinguished Reagan.

This clearly shows BL as totally unconnected with reality. Unlike FDR and Truman, unlike LBJ and Jimmy Carter who all wanted America to work with Soviet Russia in the world, a direct and stated goal of Reaganism was that the "evil empire" should come to an end, he succeeded in just that, and it "does not merit much comment"? What planet does BL hail from? He gets rid of the largest organized human force for evil in human history, which 7 prior presidents could not deal with, and BL thinks its all humdrum and "not distinguished".

It's remarkable how much old BL got wrong. A few highlights:

"The fact that [...] the 'ideas' of Ayn Rand [...] have come to the fore in the Republican Party is one of the legacies of Reagan's destruction of the public culture."

No attempt is even made to defend this claim. It seems clear enough based on the record of the sales of her books, that Rand's ideas were plenty influential (more's the pity) long before Reagan was in a position to establish any legacy. Reagan destroyed "public culture" and then Ayn Rand got popular -- say what?

Also, the fact that one of the authors Reagan really did work hard to promote -- Whittaker Chambers -- delivered the most definitive critique of Rand ever set to paper is probably beyond the scope of Leiter's imprecatory compass of history; but most of us here know for cold certainty that Rand's materialism has far more in common with the philosophy of, say, our commenter Al, than it does with the Christian dualism (matter and spirit, body and soul) of Ronald Reagan.

"he was much more consistently on the side of the short-term interests of the ruling class, at the expense of the vast majority."

Well, except for when he sided (constantly and to the severe annoyance of the DC elites) with the sentiments of all those Reagan Democrats in PA, OH, MI, etc. I mean, of course, his moral traditionalism, his patriotism, his easy dismissal of the pretenses of modern technocrats. Half of the liberal indictment against Reagan involves his appeal those "baser instincts" and "reactionary sentiments" (like hating Communism, believing in personal, up-by-the-bootstraps merit, and sneering at hippies*) which common Americans persist in refusing to acknowledge as base or outdated. That such things are dearer to the heart of most common Americans than the details of their nation's tax structure, while also an annoyance to liberals, is yet other illustration of why straight liberalism so hardly moves common Americans.

Finally, Leiter's statement that "to be the President of the United States is to be an international criminal" is very interesting, and if true, provides an instant challenge to Leiter's previous allegation that one of the "animating ideas of the Reagan revolution" -- "the best government is the least government" -- is refuted.

Like Al, Mr. Leiter appears to have a talent for self-contradiction within the span of a few sentences.

____________
* My favorite Reagan one-liner: "I had a terrible nightmare last night; I dreamed I owned a launder-mat in Berkeley."

Paul,

Please don't post such hilarity so close to the morning. I nearly sprayed coffee on my computer after reading the launder-mat in Berkeley zinger.

One negative thing that occurred during the Reagan administration: the ascendancy in the GOP of the neo-conservatives and fiscal libertarians over the traditional and social conservatives. To a certain extent the GOP has been the party of big business since its inception, but in the 80s this seems to have become more explicit and pronounced.

Since then the GOP has paid a fair amount of lip service to social issues, but has accomplished little to slow down the country's moral rot. One gets the impression that the GOP mainstream doesn't care much that the society's in the sewer, as long as the sewer is gold-lined.

Actually, Rob, it was the Reagan administration that brought the social issues to prominence in the GOP. Did Ford campaign against abortion? Was Goldwater a social conservative? It was first under Reagan that the religious right realized that it had any power to wield and made a serious attempt to wield it. The Reagan and to some extent the Bush I years were the heyday of social conservatism in the GOP. There was nothing like it before or after. Since then their influence has waned.

Yes, it allowed them to come to prominence but to what end? The Religious Right was largely used as GOP voting machine fodder. Despite a lot of brouhaha, nothing much of substance came out of it -- there was lots of show, not so much go. Other than some good judicial appointments the descent into the maelstrom continued pretty much unabated.

It would have happened faster without. The blocking of the Equal Rights Amendment was a huge thing. The liberals then had to enact (as they now largely have) the effects of it on a case-by-case basis via activist judges' interpretations of the 14th amendment. The work of Schlafly and Falwell in stopping the amendment qua amendment gained us years. If you think that's a small thing, I'm here to tell you that it isn't. The state ERA, btw, was used by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to justify forcing homosexual "marriage."

It's important that in our sad and to some extent bitter recognition of how much evil has gained, we not falsify history and erase the actual achievements of those who fought to hold back that evil.

Yes, stopping the ERA was definitely a good thing, and to a small extent the Religious Right had an impact on other issues as well. But in hindsight we should be able to see that these things were largely speedbumps on the road to cultural decadence. Speedbumps are great, and shouldn't be ignored, but neither should they be confused with Hadrian's Wall.

The speedbumps can take a great deal more blood, sweat, and tears to build and to fight for than Hadrian's Wall ever took.

Paul wrote,

"Reagan destroyed "public culture" and then Ayn Rand got popular -- say what?"

BL wrote (we should quote the whole paragraph for clarity),

"The "Reagan revolution" was, like the 1979 Iranian one, a revolution "from the right," a new phenomenon in the modern era. Reagan's represented the triumph of certain ideas, largely hatched (sad to say) at the University of Chicago, though these ideas (those of Friedman and Lucas and Hayek) triumphed not because of the arguments supporting them (decidedly a mixed bag), but because they justified policies that immediately enriched the richest and most powerful groups in American capitalism, who needed no arguments to see their merit. (The fact that, since that time, the "ideas" of Ayn Rand--the proverbial bean-brain by comparison to the other ideologues of the right like Friedman and Hayek--have come to the fore in the Republican Party is one of the legacies of Reagan's destruction of the public culture.) The two animating ideas of the "Reagan revolution"--that markets 'work' (are efficient, maximize welfare, etc.) and that the best government is the least government--might have been thought refuted by the economic collapse of 2008, and they probably have been in many parts of the world. But the United States--which purged through state force the only meaningful political opposition to the capitalist class in the years after WWII--is so intellectually bereft in its public culture, that these events have had essentially no impact. To the contrary, the major political movement of 2010 was a kind of infantile Hayekianism (dubbed the "Tea Party") that the ruling class could have only fantasized about thirty or forty years ago."

Including Friedman himself (as opposed to the conservative caricature) in his pantheon is somewhat unfair and it would be more accurate to describe Reagan's elections as one of many symptoms of the destruction of American public culture rather than a cause (to the extent that there was an American public culture to be destroyed, William F. Buckley is a better culprit).

But I quibble. Note that BL's Rand comment is parenthetical hence we wouldn't expect a "defense" which BTW isn't necessary to those up on their current events. i assume he was referring to this,

"Representative Paul Ryan, also of Wisconsin, requires staffers to read Atlas Shrugged, describes Obama’s economic policies as 'something right out of an Ayn Rand novel,' and calls Rand 'the reason I got involved in public service.'"

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/80552/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand (read the whole article)

Rep. Paul Ryan is, of course, the Chairman of the powerful House Budget Committee and is considered by the Kool Kids in the Beltway media to be a serious person, which, as he is a fraud, is yet another sign of the state of our public culture.

"he was much more consistently on the side of the short-term interests of the ruling class, at the expense of the vast majority."

Which is clearly demonstrated by the nifty chart you recently posted. Had Reagan lost in 1980 you likely wouldn't be having to write all those posts on usury and plutocracy.

"Well, except for when he sided (constantly and to the severe annoyance of the DC elites) with the sentiments of all those Reagan Democrats in PA, OH, MI, etc. I mean, of course, his moral traditionalism, his patriotism, his easy dismissal of the pretenses of modern technocrats."

Which might be better described as the triumph of false values and blind loyalties over their economic interests. All those Reagan Democrats drank the Kool Aid, voted their "values", and got royally screwed.

"That such things are dearer to the heart of most common Americans than the details of their nation's tax structure, while also an annoyance to liberals, is yet other illustration of why straight liberalism so hardly moves common Americans."

Which, again, is why you find yourself having to write those posts. What is interesting is you writing pretty words attempting to justify, nay glorify, ignorance.

All the fancy phrasing in the universe doesn't change one simple fact, clearly expressed in the simple words of Florence Reese. "which side are you on"?

Rob G,

Just to add to Lydia's analysis, remember your original contention is that:

"One negative thing that occurred during the Reagan administration: the ascendancy in the GOP of the neo-conservatives and fiscal libertarians over the traditional and social conservatives. To a certain extent the GOP has been the party of big business since its inception, but in the 80s this seems to have become more explicit and pronounced."

So what exactly were those traditional and social conservatives accomplishing during the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations? Or do we need to go back to early 20th Century history for examples that meet your approval?

"Which might be better described as the triumph of false values and blind loyalties over their economic interests"

Like the way 95% of all blacks vote Democrat, Al?

Look, from my comments above you can tell I'm no GOP cheerleader. A rising tide does not, in fact, raise all boats. But to argue that all the middle-class and working class folks who voted for Reagan were really voting against their own economic interests is simply ludicrous. Your view seems to be that the rising tide sunk everything except the millionaires' yachts, which is as false as the opposite view.

though these ideas (those of Friedman and Lucas and Hayek) triumphed not because of the arguments supporting them (decidedly a mixed bag), but because they justified policies that immediately enriched the richest and most powerful groups in American capitalism, who needed no arguments to see their merit.

Oh, come off it, Al, there ain't no sense in this comment of BL's, whatever the rest. justifying a policy by "immediately enriching the richest" would be a way of defeating the policy, not making it triumph: unless that policy is received and approved by a large portion of the masses, then the policy will be defeated, and proclaiming "this is justified because it enriches the rich" sure won't get you the support of the masses.

Oh, now I remember, the left-liberal story is that the home-owning 65%, the stock-owning 48% constitute the "richest" group.

"which side are you on"?

I am on God's side - or at least I try to be. (Just like Reagan.) To the extent that America is (still) in conformity with God's side, I am forthrightly and fully on America's side. To the extent that America has betrayed God, I am for getting America changed around. In neither case am I against _America_, though sometimes I am against a facet of the American situation.

What about you? Whose side are you on?

"which side are you on"?

That's easy. I'm on the side of Reagan, as against Ayn Rand, Al, and all the other materialists whose philosophical logic will further evacuate the public square, leaving only interest and lust for gain behind.

The idea that Reagan's tax plan brought on the riot of high-tech wizardry against which I have been writing is highly dubious. But the larger point is moral one: is there a structure of obligation outside the human will which binds us? If not, then the lust for gain is baptized and emancipated. Nothing you have written here, Al, suggests even the beginnings of a coherent ground for moral obligation.

al: have you ever met Brian Leiter? Do you have any idea where he's really coming from?

Steve: Have you ever seen Al and Brian Leiter in the same room at the same time? I rest my case.

"That's easy. I'm on the side of Reagan, as against Ayn Rand..."

You mean the Reagan who appointed Alan Greenspan Fed Chair? Just for those who have forgotten,

"Objectivism"

In the early 1950s, Greenspan began an association with famed novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand that would last until her death in 1982.[26] Rand stood beside him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.[26]

"Greenspan was introduced to Ayn Rand by his first wife, Joan Mitchell. Although Greenspan was initially a logical positivist,[35] he was converted to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism by her associate Nathaniel Branden. During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a proponent of Objectivism, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributing several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard.[36][37]"

"During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan was once recognized as a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat incongruous or dubious,[citation needed] given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation. He has come under criticism from Harry Binswanger,[38] who believes his actions while at work for the Federal Reserve and his publicly expressed opinions on other issues show abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard"

(From Wikipedia.)

Perhaps Reagan wasn't as into Chambers as you seem to believe, or perhaps, by 1987, he simply wasn't up to making intellectual distinctions. Either way, the appointment of AG as Fed Chair destroys your point.

"The idea that Reagan's tax plan brought on the riot of high-tech wizardry against which I have been writing is highly dubious."

Who claimed that? As Kinsley points out in the linked article below, Reagan poisoned the well on government in general which was a major factor in regulation not keeping up with financial innovation. At most the lower top marginal rates marginally incentivized the plundering.

Reagan raised taxes too, just not on the right folks. The lower top rates have, of course, tended to lower social mobility and facilitated the creation of a new hereditary aristocracy.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49002.html

"But the larger point is moral one: is there a structure of obligation outside the human will which binds us? If not, then the lust for gain is baptized and emancipated. Nothing you have written here, Al, suggests even the beginnings of a coherent ground for moral obligation."

Paul all I see here is rationalization. You seem to recognize that unregulated capitalism is self destructive and yet your attachment to secondary issues compels you to support the plutocracy at the ballot box. Other nations manage to handle matters like the provision of health care and employment in a just manner and have lower abortion rates then we do, Your social conservatism is a trap.

"al: have you ever met Brian Leiter? Do you have any idea where he's really coming from?"

No, and Chicago by way of Texas. I know he loathes the Texas Taliban (as do I) and is a macher in the world of philosophy. He wrote an apt evaluation of RR that I felt would provide some perspective (as does Kinsley's) to the RR idolatry.

Dredging around my recollections I seem to remember some issues betwixt you all but that has nothing to do with moi.

Al, I think I'm going to get my Webmaster to write a script that allows me to post the following comment with a single click or keystroke:

"I would suggest that you refrain from confusing your rejection of my solution with me never providing a solution."

I realize you have provided a solution and it seems to be that we work to make men angels while politically supporting those who work to advance the plutocracy. i realize it and just don't get it (and see nothing moral in it).

No way, Jeff. If Al were BL, he would not have been able to restrain himself from being a complete, utter, abusive jerk here at W4 and would have gotten himself banned long ago. I realize that this sounds like I'm defending Al, but I feel constrained to do so. I'm sure he and BL act as if they are one in all political matters, but Al would be more suave about giving his reasons for it and is beyond doubt more tolerable as blog company.

You know what this is? This is like those Soviet movies that show Stalin having a prominent position in all of Lenin's world-changing decisions.

Al, your summary demonstrates your ignorance of my position.

Let's try it this way. In the liberal sociologist Robert Putnam's most recent study, he presents this statement to Americans of various backgrounds: "These days people need to look out for themselves and not overly worry about others." 48% of secular people agree with it; only 26% of religious folks do.

My question is whether you can give me even the beginning steps of a reasoned argument for why the 48% are wrong. Wall Street has certainly been looking out for itself with no thought of others pretty well. Can you show me a coherent chain of reason that establishes obligations existing outside the human will?

If you cannot -- that is, if you cannot give grounds for believing that moral obligation are real things -- then who's trading in rationalizations? Without moral obligation, all you can get us to is a statement of preference. "I prefer that we had less usury." "I prefer a financial class possessed of some patriotic attachment." "I prefer some fellow-feeling between neighbors." I suppose you could also fall back on some positivist position, noting that certain laws seem to imply these things, but as all positive laws may change, that's pretty weaksauce.

Your materialism is a ruinous dead end. Its emancipation of the acquisitive impulse -- the will to conquer and possess -- is at the very root of all our troubles. You'll make many more converts to Ayn Rand than neighborly folks on guard against usury and usurpation.

Paul,
I'm going to be a bit of a stickler for the wording (hopefully without being a complete, utter, and abusive jerk). The poll only found that secularists are not "overly worried" about others. This leaves a lot of space undefined since they can still be worried and helpful, i.e. neighborly, just not overly worried or interventionist. In your description of Wall Street you claimed they had no thought of others, which is only partially true because the banksters were in the months leading up to the collapse actively exploiting their investors by means of fraud. It is true that Wall Street was given the green light by the political class for various reasons - some noble and other not, but I reject any view that the political calculus did not include a bipartisan effort to increase home ownership. Phrased differently, the Great Recession was caused in part by an effort to be "overly worried" about others.

"Chicago by way of Texas"

No, al - that's not where Brian is coming from - not even if we're talking geography.

Paul, Step2, have a link to the study?

Paul, Step2, have a link to the study?

"These days people need to look out for themselves and not overly worry about others." 48% of secular people agree with it; only 26% of religious folks do."

The real scandal is the lack of fidelity by Christians and not in secularists living out their creed.

"I reject any view that the political calculus did not include a bipartisan effort to increase home ownership. Phrased differently, the Great Recession was caused in part by an effort to be "overly worried" about others."

Archive in The Road To Hell vault and note they managed to enrich and empower themselves in the process.

Here is the Putnam book which came out of the survey he and other researchers conducted:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Grace-Religion-Divides-Unites/dp/1416566716/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297342405&sr=8-1

There are abundant news reports on it, but I'm not sure if the study itself is available online.

Step2, basically I'm asking Al to give us a refutation of Thrasymachus's view that "justice is the advantage of the stronger," which is the philosophy that materialism tends to encourage.

If Kekes can't even do it, I'll be very surprised if Al can.

"I reject any view that the political calculus did not include a bipartisan effort to increase home ownership."

We want to be careful here, lest we fall into the CRA trap. No one was compelled to create these loans or to steer folks who actually qualified for regular mortgages into the more profitable (for the originators) sub-prime ones. Likewise, no one was compelled to excessive leverage or to fail to actually distribute that which they had originated.

More soon on long dead Greeks but I have a septic issue (one of the downsides of rural existence) and the rains are a coming.

"long dead Greeks"

Would that Thrasymachus and his argument were long-dead. Alas, the comments of many blogs teem with Thrasy-imitators.

Step2, to the substance of your point that "the poll only found that secularists are not 'overly worried' about others" which "leaves a lot of space undefined since they can still be worried and helpful, i.e. neighborly, just not overly worried or interventionist"; while my "description of Wall Street" I used the phrase "no thought of others" --

Let me just say that I'm inclined toward a much more charitable view of secularists. The solid bulk of them, in my experience, are too decent as men to embrace the logic their philosophy promotes. It is clear that a great many secularists really do pack a lot of goodness into that "space undefined."

But there is still the separate issue of whether the secularist has actually left himself grounds for stopping the logic. The logic rolls on even if his conscience has recoiled.

Most secularists don't want to face this dilemma. Our commenter Al is a master of evading the debate I keep asking him for.

The vulnerability of the liberal or progressive to the cynicism of Thrasymachus is simply a fact of the political world; which is why Plato's text is not yet dead at all, much less "long dead."

Materialism in its basic cynicism reigned on Wall Street. That is a problem for every materialist out there, patiently taking his evangel to the blogs.

Paul,
Okay, the subject of justice is a highly abstract matter that has hundreds of tangents - religious, philosophical, legal, historical, even evolutionary biology. To address your particular concern, I tend to use "fairness" and "justice" interchangeably, which prevents what you would call a default cynicism. Although I do appreciate some forms of cynical expression, as shown by a favorite comic quote about justice:

"You know, the courts may not be working any more, but as long as everyone is videotaping everyone else, justice will be done." ~ Marge Simpson

"Our commenter Al is a master of evading the debate I keep asking him for."

No evasion but you need to get more specific. As near as I can tell, differences at the level you propose as critical are of little consequence in the real world. In your Wall street example we have the convergence of ideology and sociopathy, materialism plays no role. Character counts for more than beliefs about existence.

What is character? To what does it refer? How are we to judge whether a man has it or not?

If a financier stands before you and says, "my position gives me strength; I can see nothing in the world that suggests I owe anything to weakness, so I intend to perpetrate my strength," can you formulate an answer that is more than a promise that one day your side will have the strength and then he'll be sorry?

When I was in college in the 1990s when the boom was in full swing, the place was teeming with folks who approached things from a posture of strict materialism -- the acquisitive impulse untethered. I had this argument innumerable times. The Scoffer is a very common pose amongst jaded college students. The 1960s did not turn college students into socialists revolutionaries; it turned them into aspiring plutocrats. "There is no morality, you reactionary fool; we're here to have fun and get degrees so that we can live comfortable lives before chance or decrepitude extinguishes our moment under the sun." Most of these folks went into finance; some of them (thankfully) outgrew their materialism.

As far as I can tell, Al, you have no substance with which to answer this. You're disarmed and the plutocrats win. Not only have you no substance; on the evidence you lack even the vocabulary by which to formulate a substantive reply. "Justice is the advantage of the stronger" is not a philosophy you are capable of refuting.

For materialism, acquisition unfettered by morality, is of course the core principle of the plutocracy. And all you're left with is the vain hope that enough people will grow bitter about this that one day, through the magic of plebiscitary democracy, the Left will reign and the plutocracy can be plundered.

If a financier stands before you and says, "my position gives me strength; I can see nothing in the world that suggests I owe anything to weakness, so I intend to perpetrate my strength," can you formulate an answer that is more than a promise that one day your side will have the strength and then he'll be sorry?

First, only a fool assumes he can avoid the random quirks of fate or the revenge of needless enemies. Second, depending upon the degree of arrogance and harm he could inflict, I'd be willing to sacrifice plenty to make him pay an immediate price, even if it is relatively small, because of course I reject the notion that his "position" is inviolable. Third, materialism that rejects morality in total is an ignorant and crass kind of materialism, even the founder of "free markets uber alles" Adam Smith discussed its potential and limitations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments

And all you're left with is the vain hope that enough people will grow bitter about this that one day, through the magic of plebiscitary democracy, the Left will reign and the plutocracy can be plundered.

Well, it has been the plutocracy that has been plundering the manufacturing sector by exporting jobs and has lately been demanding bailouts from the Fed. So I'm not too big on sympathy for our modern day robber barons. Unless paying a higher marginal tax rate has been rhetorically transformed into plunder, I merely prefer to see less class warfare and resentment from our poor elites.