It’s Always About Money With The Left

I’m fond of pointing out that the Left has a strange and predictable opposite rule of rhetoric. Whatever they are accusing the bogeyman of doing, you can almost always be sure it is the exact opposite of the truth. In almost all cases, the thing they are accusing the bogeyman of doing is what they are currently doing. It is a wonderful bit of deception and a great group adaptation. While the non-believers are examining the bogeyman’s actions, the Left gets to operate unfettered. Shifting the focus is one of those individual traits that scales up very well.

So it is with the Left and foreign policy. They are always accusing the neo-cons or the plain old regular cons of trading blood for something, like oil. Iraq was allegedly about oil. Afghanistan was about Halliburton and the defense industry. A lot of time was spent examining these claims only to learn that it was ideology and sloppy reasoning, not money, at the root of these adventures. The Bush people really thought they were spreading democracy.

The Cuba deal, on the other hand, was a pure money play. Obama’s money men see opportunity in Cuba. It may be a poor country, but it can be a resort colony, medical colony for health care tourists and a source of cheap labor. To the average America, Cuba is a wart on the face of humanity and should be allowed to sink into the sea. In other words, the Right is motivated by morality, while for the Left, Cuba is just another place to feed.

The pending Iran deal is similarly about money. The usual suspects on the professional Right are trying to make it about Obama the Muslim or Obama the Jew-hater. Obama is most certainly pro-Muslim and he hates Jews, but that’s not what it is about. It is about money. I have a friend in the region who works in the oil and gas sector. He reports that American firms are sending top level delegations to Tehran in anticipation of a deal. The head of Ceva Logistics was just in Iran trying to cut a deal. They are a prime for Halliburton and Schlumberger.

The American Left is not Marxist. That strain died out in the 50’s. As David Horowitz has explained in great detail, the modern Left rejected the old commies early on as has-beens and opportunists. The modern American Left is very comfortable with global capitalism. They made their peace with it in the late 80’s and have since evolved into a movement Mussolini would easily recognize and envy. In some respects, the Clintons get away with their shenanigans because their coevals envy their prowess. Obama and the Wookiee hope to follow their model and become super-rich after his term in office is complete.

This sort of cynical self-dealing has its limits. In the banana republics, it usually ends in a bloodbath. In a nuclear world, a bloodbath is a good result. Sane people who follow Iran think the rulers truly believe their rhetoric. The Iranian mullahs think they are ushering in the end times and they will be triumphant in the final great clash. Maybe they don’t. Maybe they just say all that stuff because they think they have to keep up appearances, like American politicians wearing flag lapel pins. No one can know, but it is a big risk for a little cash.

6 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback
9 years ago

[…] slows down Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon and lifts the sanctions on them. The fact that every energy firm on earth is lining up to make a deal with the mullahs says the sanctions are sure to be lifted, no matter what Iran does or does not do. Western […]

UKer
UKer
9 years ago

In the UK, the left-leaners (aka the Labour Party members) who fall foul of the law usually end up in hot water because of money. The Tories, who supposedly have money (or rather, they have ‘old’ money which appears to come with some sort of easy-going acceptance and sensibility) tend to get into sexual scrapes. Profumo, the disgraced Tory Secretary of State for War minister in the 60s, was one casualty on the right and John Stonehouse, the Labour government’s Postmaster General — who was eventually revealed as a Czech spy — is remembered here for attempting to fake his… Read more »

el baboso
Member
9 years ago

I don’t think that it’s really “progressive sexually morality.” More like traditional Shia amorality gone wild. The way it works is this. You and the zaftig divorcee down the street go see the mullah. No one would ever tell me what the mullah’s rake was, but he would get a percentage of the gross. He would say “halal tukhi” (“it is allowed”) three times and you and the divorcee would go do whatever you paid for (this can range from a one night stand to something more long term, apparently). The one thing that everyone violently agreed on was this… Read more »

guest
guest
9 years ago

It’s cultural Marxism on top of fascism/crony capitalism.

“We won the cold war with political and economic communism, but we lost the cultural war with cultural Marxism, which i think has prevailed in the United States and is now the dominant culture.”
– Pat Buchanan

p.s. see: The Daily Show Goes to Iran
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEDi-pMoA7M

It’s the most popular western show over there…

Thrasymachus
9 years ago

What we have in the Anglosphere is the progressive left, a much different creature than the communist left, although the two are closely related and easily confused. The progressive left doesn’t like global capitalism, it *is* global capitalism for all intents and purposes. It’s the public and private religion of English and Dutch Calvinist merchants. The progressive left doesn’t support the communist left because it is communist or particularly likes communism, it does it because communist movements are a great way to clear away traditional elites not interested in participating in global capitalism. No Protestant country, except for East Germany,… Read more »