The science is settled: US liberals really are the dumbest creatures on the planet

Science settled on liberal folly.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: journalism needs less truth, less balance

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: journalism needs less truth, less balance

Today I am in New York on my publicity tour for Watermelons and as I sat at breakfast this morning, chomping on an Ess-a-bagel and reading Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics I found myself wondering – not for the first time – why it is that liberal-lefties manage to be so utterly wrong about everything.

“Because they’re stupid,” said a libertarian friend of mine.

“Oh come on, not all of them surely? A bit misguided, maybe but…” I protested.

“No really they’re stupid because they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too.”

Well, you know me: what a big-hearted, sensitive, caring, emollient kind of guy I am. I thought these words were harsh, really harsh. But that was before I saw this video.

It features Chris Matthews, one of America’s most popular liberal talk show hosts, talking to a liberal journalist from liberal blogsite Salon called Joan Walsh and another liberal journalist from liberal Rolling Stone magazine on the liberal politics programme Hardball. And guess what these liberals believe the problem with Climate Change is? Go on: think of the most stupid, reality-denying, fact-ignoring, evidence-torturing tosh anyone involved in the media could possibly have to say on the subject. (H/T  Climate Depot)

Yes, that’s right.

They think that the naughty yellow pixies who pull the special, magic Climat-O-Levers which control the weather have been paid by evil capitalists with fat cigars in their mouth and $ signs on their pinstripe suits to make the world’s climate all horrid so that poor, underprivileged and disabled people and endangered creatures suffer – and that the reason we don’t know about it is because the media is run by evil Conservatives who want to keep this truth a secret.

Well, almost. What these liberal opinion-formers actually think – and you’ve really got to hand it to them: not even a lobotomised amoeba could beat them in a competition for dumbest creature on the planet, these three are absolute champs, Matthews especially, make no mistake – is as follows.

They think the main reasons for the public’s growing scepticism on Climate Change are 1. The media has been far too balanced on the subject and is not pushing the eco-message hard enough. 2. Big business is funding Climate Denialism. 3. Evil Conservatives – led by Evil Talk Show Hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – are deliberately telling lies about Climate Change. 4. The Republican party is “anti-science”.

My favourite bit is the one where Chris Matthews, who I believe takes himself seriously as a journalist, declares: “I hate that even-handed, so-called objective journalism. You know, you can’t say something isn’t true if it’s true….”

Do you know, on that last point at least I totally agree with Chris Matthews. So let’s examine a few of the claims which he and his two guest liberal echo chambers made on Hardball.

1. The media under-reports climate change. Oh yes. That will explain, for example, the recent widely reported story Decline Of Oceans Worse Than Previously Thought – given unquestioning coverage everywhere from the Sydney Morning Herald, the New York Times and Time magazine to the BBC. Yet as research from Ben Pile at Climate Resistance shows, most of these experts offering their supposed expert views on the imminence of pelagic climate doom were in fact just an ad hoc group of activists from heavily politicised organisations like Greenpeace and Pew Environment Group. Such is the state of Environmental reporting around the world these days: it consists of little more than lovingly transcribed press releases from hardcore ecoloon pressure groups.

2 Jo Nova has estimated that the amount spent by government agencies, left-leaning charitable foundations and big business promoting “global warming” is approximately 3,500 times more than the amount spent funding climate change scepticism.

3. With notable exceptions such as Fox news, US conservative talk radio, the generally right-leaning blogosphere and one or two papers such as Canada’s National Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Express (and increasingly, the Mail) there are few media outlets in the world which broadcast anything other than green propaganda. Far from being evil, the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are islands of truth in a (presumably doomed, increasingly acidified) ocean of lies. (I’d be interested if Matthews could produce some concrete examples of these “lies” that Limbaugh and Beck have told on climate change).

4. Would that be “science” in the sense used by Al Gore, as in the received wisdom of a self-selecting cabal of post-normal activist scientists who dominate organisations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. If so, then the Republican party is indeed “anti-science” because – with notable exceptions such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, of whom more in a subsequent post, very likely to be entitled “Mitt Romney prefers dog poop yogurt” – bases its scientific views on old fashioned virtues like rationalism, empiricism and open-minded, honest research rather than junk science dogma.

If we’re talking about science in the more old fashioned sense of the word as it might have been understood by, say Newton or Popper, rather than James Hansen or Al Gore, then no, the Republicans are not “anti-science.”

Related posts:

  1. Why aren’t there more rewards for being right?
  2. Conservative blacks are fed up with being patronised by liberals and bureaucrats
  3. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all
  4. 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Be In Libya

20 thoughts on “The science is settled: US liberals really are the dumbest creatures on the planet”

  1. Todd says:24th June 2011 at 12:36 pmYou should write for The Onion. That’s some of the best satire i’ve ever read.
  2. Peter says:24th June 2011 at 2:58 pmWhen I read this post, I honestly wondered whether the author actually believed what he had written, or whether the post was intended as an ironic demonstration of conservative stupidity.

    While intended to demonstrate how dumb liberals are, the author quotes his libertarian friend in stating, “No really [liberals are] stupid because they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too.”

    However, here is the irony. That statement is more applicable to conservatives than liberals, making the entire article an exercise in psychological delusions and imposing the insecurities of one ideological community on its competition. Kinda the same way Fox News is always attacking the “mainstream media” for liberal bias when the truth is that Fox News is designed to appeal to conservatives, and therefore anything left of right, even when it’s in the center, is part of some evil conspiracy.

    Democrats listen to scientists and form their public policies based on what scientists tell them need to be done. Doing what the smartest guys in the room tell you to do isn’t dumb. It’s smart. Republicans, on the other hand, treat scientists with hostility if whatever the scientists say runs counter to what common conservative thought.

    Same deal with economists. In the past four years, Democrats have followed the advice of our nation’s smartest economists, who nearly unanimously warned that if action wasn’t taken, America would sink into a second Great Depression. Republicans advocates courses of policy which many economists came out as saying would stagnate and ultimately destroy the American economy. When President George W. Bush was presented with those choices, he was forced to pick between doing what was right for America versus what was right in terms of conservative thought. And he picked America. I know some of Congress’ top economists, and they’ve all told me the same thing. Liberals come to them looking for advice as to what policies would do America the most good, whereas conservatives come to them looking for advice as to how to make it look like their policies would do the most good. And this has apparently been a trend for decades.

    There is a reason the vast majority of scientists are Democrats. And it’s not because scientists are dumb. And it doesn’t have to do with feeling insulted because mainstream conservative America has an open hostility towards intellectualism and science. It’s because conservative public policy, in its current incarnation, contradicts what our brightest minds tell us needs to be done, and repeatedly uses every opportunity to advance ideological goals rather than advance intelligent public policy which will make America a better and stronger nation.

    Despite what the author implies, and what most conservatives believe, liberalism isn’t about taking a dump on America or freedom. Or ruining people’s lives. And being evil. In fact, true liberalism is nothing like what the conservative media paints it as.

    Modern liberalism is about true fiscal responsibility, which is more complex and intricate than one tax cut for the rich after another. What conservatives don’t want us to notice is that the debt we have today is in large part the consequence of the conservative economic policies of the past decade in which massive tax cuts were granted without being paid for, on the assumption that the stimulus of the tax cuts would produce higher revenue streams as the economy improved. This has been proven false. And it only costs us trillions of dollars to learn the lesson: conservative economics doesn’t work. At least, not in the real world.

    Modern liberalism is about freedom. Be it women’s freedom over their own bodies, to religious freedom and people’s right to be free of others imposing their religious teachings on them.

    Modern liberalism is about information, and making the best decisions based on what our most brilliant scientists, economists, and sociologists tell us needs to be done to make tomorrow better than today.

    Modern liberalism is about personal responsibility and communal responsibility. And no, that’s not the same thing as communism. Or socialism. Or whatever the bobble-heads at Fox have instructed conservatives to believe. It’s about rewarding personal responsibility, such as buying health care, and punishing irresponsible behavior. It’s about looking after each other since everyone can have a run of bad luck, rather than living in a purely competitive society lacking in compassion.

    Modern liberalism is about being strong and sensible, and an advocate for freedom all across this great globe – not hunting down evil people (though Obama proved we’re better at that too).

    If I believed everything that this author, not to mention conservatives in general, seem to believe about liberalism… now THAT would be dumb.

  3. billy says:24th June 2011 at 3:15 pmTortured verbal stylings, in your face provocation, logical callisthenics. It’s all been done before, and so much more amusingly, by much more intelligent writers.
  4. Frank Tavos says:24th June 2011 at 3:38 pm@Peter:

    Is this some kind of satiric piece you’ve written?

    Here’s my favourite bit from your post:

    “Modern liberalism is about personal responsibility…”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… (takes large breath)…hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Funniest thing I’ve read in a long time.

  5. Hilary says:24th June 2011 at 5:42 pmPeter, your verbose and bloated comment is the satire. The great thing about Delingpole is that his hilarity is based on the reality that libs are LOONS, the skunks at the birthday party dressed like Lady Gaga and stinking to high heaven and ruining everything they touch.
    Your comments are hilarious because one reads them realizing you are clueless.

    Frank Tavos says it best HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  6. Frank Tavos says:24th June 2011 at 6:58 pm@ Peter:

    No wait, here’s an even better one!

    “It’s about rewarding personal responsibility, such as buying health care, and punishing irresponsible behavior.”

    Do you mean irresponsible behaviour like:

    – wanting big government to stay the hell out of our lives?
    – wanting to benefit from the fruits of our own labour and initiative?
    – saying whatever one wants, whenever one wants, as is the right of all free people?

    Need I go on? You sir, like all liberals, are a lover of government tyranny. You want to tell everyone how to live their lives, to fit your own small-minded image of how society should be. You want to stifle discussion and legislate everyone to think as you do.

    Since I can’t believe that someone who writes as well as you do is as naive and ignorant as the content of your post indicates, I am forced to conclude that you are truly dumb.

  7. clair voyant says:24th June 2011 at 7:13 pmYou’ve come upon the only way to deal with Chris Matthews, and all Liberals for that matter, and that is to laugh at and ridicule everything they say.

    The other night on Hardball, I heard Matthews say “we all know that Obama is a genius…”

    What???….Where are the facts to support that? Certainly not in the manner in which he has led his country.

    Keep exposing, laughing, ridiculing. It may not make them watch what they say, but it is great fun and we all can use the good laugh.

  8. Brent S says:24th June 2011 at 8:43 pmConservatives want to control your life – Abortion, Gay Marriage, et al. Don’t think for a second they’re about “freedom” – if it was, they’d stay out of it. And you got to love how they love the fetus up until the moment the thing is born – then it’s “fend for yourself, and don’t make me pay for the extra roads, schools, prisons this extra sea of unwanted children will require”.
  9. Enigman says:27th June 2011 at 8:47 pmPeter,
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha……….Thanks, I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time.

    Hey look, there goes a personally responsible person with my tax money to buy dope.

  10. Andrew Ryan says:29th June 2011 at 9:54 amFrank Tavos: “wanting big government to stay the hell out of our lives?”

    Brent S is quite correct. If Republicans didn’t want to interfere in people’s lives then they’d ALL stop opposing gay marriage, let people take whatever drugs they wanted, stop trying to force people to say prayers in schools, stop forcing soldiers to take part in religious activities, and stop trying to interfere with women’s reproductive rights. I’m not saying these are all necessarily evil things to do, just against libertarian principles.

    Republicans who support these policies should remember that when they point the ‘interfering government’ finger at liberals, they’re pointing three of their own fingers back at themselves.

    “saying whatever one wants, whenever one wants, as is the right of all free people?”

    As opposed to – “I don’t want to do it, therefore it should be illegal”.

    Keep laughing, because the joke is on you!

  11. Frank Tavos says:29th June 2011 at 4:53 pm@ Andrew Ryan

    You haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about. You appear to have mistaken me for a Republican. Your comments are founded on ignorance, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

    The fact is, I don’t want to control your life or anyone else’s. I’m a conservative of the libertarian persuasion. I agree with you on the some of the points you raised. I’m also not saying government has no role to play in society. I just think it should play a much smaller role. I don’t think government should be forcing soldiers (or anyone) to say prayers or take part in religious ceremonies. On the other hand, I also don’t think that the government should forbid soldiers or citizens from practicing their religion openly. I also don’t think that recreational drugs should regulated by government. The so-called War on Drugs is an incredible waste of time and money.

    As for gay marriage, the term itself is meaningless. Marriage has been defined since time immemorial as a union between a man and a woman. It is of benefit to society to enforce social mores through social means, not by getting the government to change such a fundamental principle of our society to pander to a vocal minority. It is the left in general and gays in particular who are the ones who are trying to force the issue (through government coercion) by redefining the very essence of the meaning of marriage.

    As for the ridiculous euphemism, “women’s reproductive rights”, if you are saying the government doesn’t have the power to enforce the criminal law to protect the lives of unborn human beings, then you’re advocating anarchy. I’m not an anarchist. As I said before, the government has a small role to play in society, and enforcing laws against murder fall into that limited bailiwick.

    So I stand behind my original statement in saying that I believe in and want:

    – big government to stay the hell out of our lives;
    – everyone to benefit from the fruits of their own labour and initiative; and
    – the right to say whatever one wants, whenever one wants.

    So, actually, the joke’s on you, because you’ve set up a straw man and knocked it down, but you haven’t even begun to deal with the issues I’ve raised.

  12. Andrew Ryan says:29th June 2011 at 7:23 pmActually Frank, I prefer to base my opinions on fact. You might want to try that some time. The blog we are commenting on specifically refers to US politics. Congrats on your liberal stance on drugs and on religious freedom – you are at odds with the GOP on these positions. The rest of your post is apologetics justifying government control, as I expected. I’d engage more with your points – there is certainly a good discussion to have on the crossover opinions shared by liberals and libertarians on many subjects, but given your initial ‘ha ha ha’ posts, my response was as much as you deserved.
  13. Frank Tavos says:29th June 2011 at 7:46 pmYeah well… fuck you, too, Andy.
  14. Nige Cook says:29th June 2011 at 8:34 pmThe French for f*** is foutre, which would sound more polite, although maybe that would not be understood so clearly.

    (I hope James will be OK selling Watermelons at a discount on this website, when Amazon in the past has refused to sell books which are available cheaper online elsewhere? Although maybe this policy has changed, or maybe it doesn’t apply since it is (USA), not Is Watermelons going to come out in the UK, or are all the publishers here too biased to bring it out?

  15. Frank Tavos says:30th June 2011 at 2:32 pmNige:

    I also c0uld have said it in Latin, but philistines like Andy-boy would probably consider that a “dead language”. To wit:

    Futue te ipsum, et caballum teum. (trans: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!)

  16. Andrew Ryan says:30th June 2011 at 2:55 pmOdi profannum vulgus.
  17. Frank Tavos says:30th June 2011 at 5:42 pmWe’re making some progress, then. If you hate the vulgar rabble, then I guess you hate liberals. There’s nothing more vulgar than a liberal.

    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

  18. Frank Tavos says:1st September 2011 at 1:37 pmYawn… could you two wankers please turn out the light when you’re finished your pointless gab-fest?
    1. James Delingpole says:1st September 2011 at 1:56 pmIt’s OK Frank. I’ve just spammed the trolls. One of the privileges of web page ownership.
  19. Frank Tavos says:9th September 2011 at 4:56 pmMerci beaucoup, Jimbo.

    When’s the next Coward novel out? Not trying to put any pressure on you, but I need another fix!

Comments are closed.

I Heart Glenn Beck


So Glenn Beck is to lose his show at Fox. If you want to know why this is a bad thing for the world, forget what you may think of his sometimes over-the-top, lachrymose schtick and his tendency towards overstating the case. Concentrate instead on the unbridled joy and delirium Becks dethronement is already causing in left-liberal circles. The head of Glenn Beck on a platter is like Kwaanza come early for Keith Olbermann and George Soros and Barack Obama and CNN and CNBC and the New York Times and all the rest of that rag bag of Islamists, eco-loons, progressives, communitarians, and Gramsciites who would be so much happier if you didnt know about their plans to steal your freedoms, take more of your money, swell the size of government and destroy your liberty.

Here, for example, is what that bastion of liberal values The New Republic has to say in a piece but barely able to contain its pant-wetting joy that the chief Warlock of Unreconstructed Right Wing Darkness has been defanged:

What happened? Beck built a following by making outlandish, conspiratorial claims—about ACORN, Obama, and so on. (Bizarrely, his extremism may have augmented the number of curious liberal viewers tuning in: A Pew Research Center poll from last September found that 9 percent of Beck’s Fox viewers identified as Democrats, and 21 percent as moderates or liberals.) But “anytime you have extreme stimulus,” says Alexander Zaitchik, author of the unauthorized Beck biography Common Nonsense, “you’ll have diminishing returns.” Beck, says Zaitchik, was caught “in a vicious circle”: To keep viewers coming back, he had to keep creating new, more intricate theories. Last November, in a two-part special that indirectly invoked anti-Semitism, he accused liberal Jewish financier George Soros of orchestrating the fall of foreign governments for financial gain.

Hang on a second. Is the New Republic trying to rewrite history here by telling us that ACORN isnt a monstrously corrupt, hard-left organisation which, for example, has been shown on camera advising an alleged pimp how best to hide the illegal earnings of his underage tricks? And is it also trying to tell us that George Soros the financier who, inter alia, made a fortune by betting against the British taxpayer over EMU, and who is well known for his sponsorship of revolutionary left causes is a lovable, grotesquely maligned figure of bounteous goodness whose critics only hate him because hes Jewish. (The latter is a pretty rich charge coming from a liberal: doesnt the worlds most vicious anti-Semitism come almost exclusively from the glibly pro-Palestinian, virulently anti-Israel liberal-left these days?)

Sure Glenn Beck has his faults but they are vastly outweighed by his strengths: his fearlessness in speaking truth to power; his gift for explaining political ideas in a way that galvanises the attention of Middle America; his sheer entertainment value. In Britain, we have no real equivalent of Beck and we could do with one. One of the reasons this country is so totally screwed at the moment is because of the shocking political apathy and ignorance of almost everyone outside Westminster and the media village: everyone has a vague sense that things are wrong, but almost no one has the vocabulary or ideological base to articulate what the problem is. Thanks to people like Glenn Beck, this isnt the case in America. Beck has given them a voice; he helped make the glorious popular revolt against the political class the Tea Party possible.

My guess is that Glenn Beck is going to bounce back from this low in his career and will return stronger and more popular than ever. And if youre a conservative and youve ever nurtured doubts about Beck, just ask yourself this: if hes really such a joke, why do you think it is that so many on the liberal-left so hate and fear him?

Related posts:

  1. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  2. How conservative pranksters made idiots of Obama’s favourite left-wing charity ACORN
  3. Why we still heart Sarah Palin
  4. Kickstarter, FrackNation and proof that there IS a God!

3 thoughts on “I heart Glenn Beck”

  1. Duncan M says:9th April 2011 at 8:54 amDarn! Beck is losing his show!! What a shame!!! Comedians like Beck and you should be on our tv more, you guys are brilliant. Along with Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party and all the hate preachers. In fact, you guys should have your own show and call it Der Stürmer.
  2. Velocity says:9th April 2011 at 9:27 pmBeck was the only political show on TV i could watch (stomach). The rest is pitiful propaganda, everything from the endless crones on Question Time to the BBC’s Politics Show which is more of the same carefully contructed sugar coated shit that never gets to the turds lurking beneath

    Beck was head-on, refreshing, brave on any topic none of which the mainstream guff would touch on. He deserves a Pulitzer no question

    My only reserves came when he coated all too much in the Constitution, religion, the pro military-industrial complex and pro Isreal (a sham state) as all pro Republicans unquestionably abide by.

    Still he will be sorely missed and, like you James, hope he returns at full force

  3. Pug says:29th April 2011 at 7:21 amJust to let you know James, it is articles of this ilk , and things like your most devoted follower on the Telegraph using a Confederate flag as his avatar, which causes a great deal of similarly anti-establishment and un-PC individuals with great taste in music (like me), who would otherwise be very well disposed toward a great deal of the points you make, to wrinkle their noses as if you smelt slightly of diarrhea.

Comments are closed.

Van Jones Was Just the Start: Now We Need a Yekaterinburg of ALL the Czars

Hmm. I wonder which of the many glorious aspects of Mother Gaia it was that first attracted President Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones to the environmental movement.

Was it, perhaps, his love of fluffy bunnies – especially those ones with the long floppy ears and the sweet pink noses?

Was it the sight of the mighty redwoods in Northern California or the sea otters frolicking amid the kelp off Big Sur or the manatees basking so cutely amid the  shimmering propellors of the Everglades?

Was it the long weekend trips he regularly takes with his pit bulls Fidel, Josef, Chairman, Lavrenty and Malcolm to experience the heart-stopping majesty of America’s National Parks? (Those that haven’t been closed, that is, due to budgetary restrictions).

Naah. Like so many in the modern green movement, Van Jones (or rather Anthony Jones as he was christened: he adopted the name Van at school because he thought it would make him look more “rad”) has about as much genuine interest in nature as socialists do in the plight of the poor. Which is to say, it’s a nice thing to mention once in a while to make yourself sound at once high-minded and caring, but it’s most definitely not the real issue. For hard-core greens, the real issue is the same as it is for their socialist kindred spirits: control.

Van Jones’s only mistake – and this is what has just cost him his job as “Green Czar” – was to be so slapdash in disguising his real agenda. A self professed communist with links to radical Maoist group STORM and hard-leftist ACORN, he made quite clear in his bestselling book The Green Collar Economy that his real aim was the socialization of America.

As Phil Kerpen summarizes it at Fox News:

“He urged adoption of a carbon cap-and-trade program, renewable electricity mandates– including Al Gore’s outlandish and impossible goal of eliminating fossil fuel use by 2018, large taxpayer-funded green jobs programs, a so-called smart grid for electricity, more mass-transit subsidies, higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, federal funding for organic farms, a ban on new coal plants, expanded ethanol mandates, and even a spirited, multiple page pitch for a cash-for-clunkers program–he called it “Hoopties for Hybrids.”

The problem is, as Kerpen reminds us:

“Green jobs are not economic jobs but political jobs, designed to funnel vast sums of taxpayer money to left-wing labor unions, environmental groups, and social justice community organizers.”

Van Jones, in other words, was and is a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

So how come this hard-left activist – barmy enough to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy organised by George W Bush – managed to get a senior appointment in the Obama administration, with responsibility for the allocation of millions of dollars worth of taxpayers’ cash?

Simple. Because this is what socialist regimes do, as I tried to explain earlier this year in my book Welcome To Obamaland: I’ve Seen Your Future And It Doesn’t Work.

In it, I warned the US of the “smorgasbord of scuzzballs, incompetents, time servers, Communists, class warriors, eco-loons, single-issue rabble-rousers, malcontents and losers who always rise to the surface during a left-liberal administration.”

“You’ve seen some of these types in action before. The John Murthas and the Chuck Schumers. The James Carvilles and the Al Sharptons. The Barney Franks and the Henry Waxmans. And it’s bearable when there’s not too many of them. Almost amusing even because they can act as bogeymen: the whacko villains you just love to hate.”

“Where it becomes a problem – as you’re about to discover, if you haven’t already – is when your ruling administration consists of nothing but these people. No longer do they qualify as light relief. They become your daily nightmare.”

It’s OK, you don’t have to hail me as the new Nostradamus. Making these predictions was a no-brainer because it’s exactly the same process as we’ve witnessed in Britain these last twelve years under New Labour. Rather than having all his cronies go through the tedious and unedifying process of having to stand for parliamentary election, Tony Blair simply handed them their political jobs on a plate by appointing them Health Czar, or Race Czar, or Climate Change Czar or whatever. In this way, he could stuff his new governing class with politically-sympathetic placemen – with the added advantage that they were completely unaccountable to the democratic process.

Similar rules apply, of course, to the 1,160 Quangos which have flourished under New Labour, such as the Charity Commission currently headed by a woman calling herself “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather”, formerly a freelance consumer consultant, but relentlessly promoted under Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown because of her suitably left-liberal political views. She is currently acting as Britain’s Shrill Bitterness And Class War Czar, responsible for fomenting ever deeper social resentment, grinding her stiletto heels in the faces of the middle classes, and smashing the private school system. And a very splendid job she is making of it too.

President Obama has learned the Blair lesson well, having appointed mostly leftist chums to no fewer than 32 Czardoms (31, now that Van Jones has thankfully gone). Glenn Beck, the US talk show host who was instrumental in forcing Van Jones’s resignation, lists them in full on his website. They include a Domestic Violence Czar,  an Energy and Climate Czar (the terrifying Socialist Carol Browner) and even a Guantanamo Closure Czar.

As I suggested in my headline there can only be one sensible solution to this embarrassment of Czars, and its one that Bolsheviks on both sides of the Atlantic will be cheerily familiar. Think Czar Nicholas II. Think Yekatarinburg. Think July 1918. Its the only language these people understand.

Note: The original Telegraph page is not available even via the Wayback Machine.

Related posts:

  1. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  2. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters
  3. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  4. Climategate 2.0: the not nice and clueless Phil Jones