Thank You for Sharing, Jon Lovitz

by | Apr 29, 2012

It seems like Hollywood is filled with a bunch of nitwitted, anti-intellectual, group-think liberal socialists. These entertainers have more money than anyone — and good for them — but instead of being in favor of money-making, they’re furiously against it. I’ve never understood this. If you’re sincerely against capitalism, and you denounce “the rich” and […]

It seems like Hollywood is filled with a bunch of nitwitted, anti-intellectual, group-think liberal socialists. These entertainers have more money than anyone — and good for them — but instead of being in favor of money-making, they’re furiously against it.

I’ve never understood this. If you’re sincerely against capitalism, and you denounce “the rich” and the system that enables some to be rich, then by what rationalization do you keep the money that you yourself made in that system?

If money-making is bad and evil, as liberal Hollywood celebrities like George Clooney, Susan Sarandon and Barbara Streisand declare every chance they get, then it seems reasonable that they would give everything they make through that hated system to some cause. They would not live in big houses, and they would not wear flashy clothes and jewelry on the red carpet. They would keep only the average American income for themselves, and give the rest away.

I would understand a liberal who chooses to live in poverty or otherwise mediocre economic conditions. I wouldn’t agree, but I’d understand the consistency. I don’t understand a liberal who lives a comfortable life with his millions (or in some cases, such as George Soros or Oprah Winfrey, billions) of dollars. I haven’t read or heard of a single wealthy liberal who doesn’t choose to live a wealthy and comfortable life, despite profound disagreement with the system of capitalism, money and achievement which made it all possible.

The same applies to Obama. He, his wife and children, once they leave office — mercifully in a year, presumably in no more than 5 years — will live a very comfortable material existence for the rest of their lives. They’ll make a ton of money in books, tours, and celebrity entrepreneurship for decades to come. They won’t be giving it all away.

They won’t even be giving most of it away.

Celebrity and millionaire liberals are prepared to impose, through force, their personal and ideological viewpoint of wealth redistribution on everybody else, but they don’t seem to be willing to apply this principle to themselves on a voluntary basis, not before it becomes the absolute law of the land. You have to wonder what this says about the liberal view of him- or herself. Hypocrisy on this scale and self-hatred are usually intertwined. Perhaps that’s why so many liberals are hostile and intolerant of dissension. Their horrific lack of integrity and internal consistency have quite simply put them in a bad mood.

Are there exceptions to Hollywood and other celebrity liberals? Of course there are. But most of them are in the closet. It takes courage to come out of the closet and not be a liberal — especially when you’re “supposed” to be one. I credit any of them who stand up and do.

Count comedian Jon Lovitz as one of those with at least a little bit of spunk in standing up to the Liberal Establishment. Here’s what he had to say about Barack Obama, whose name and reputation you dare not challenge, at least not in Hollywood:

“This whole thing with Obama saying the rich don’t pay their taxes is ******* bull****. And I voted for the guy, and I’m a Democrat. What a ******* *******. The rich don’t pay their taxes? Let me tell you something, right. First they say to you, you’re dead broke, ‘the United States of America, you can do anything you want, go for it.’ So then you go for it and then you make it, and everyone’s like ‘**** you.'”

This is hardly an articulate, philosophical defense of capitalism, individual rights and private property. But in the increasingly insane age in which we live, it will have to do. At least so far as Hollywood celebrities are concerned.

Why Lovitz voted for Obama in the first place, given that Obama ran as an explicit and unapologetic “spread the wealth” Marxist, is something of a mystery. But at least Lovitz has the intellectual clear-headedness to admit, if only for a moment, that he was wrong. In Hollywood, that’s an unusual thing.

Actually, Lovitz makes a deeper point than a casual glance at his comments suggests. Cut through the expletives and you’ll discover what he’s saying is true. Obama, second-rate college professor abruptly turned President that he is, has the unmitigated audacity to declare, “This is America. Go after your dreams.” Then, once you’re highly successful, you’re expected to give at least 50 percent of it away. How inspiring, Barack. I guess that’s why the economy is in this unprecedented boom, isn’t it?

What sense does it make to have a country where people are left free to make a lot of money, if they’re not allowed to keep that money? Whether invested in stocks, in new business, or spent on luxury items, it’s good for the economy in all cases. It’s NOT so good for the politicians.

Nobody ever thinks of this … yet it’s so obvious! This welfare and entitlement state serves the purposes of two groups: Those who won’t or can’t produce, and those who are (morally speaking) much worse … the politicians.

I wonder if Obama really teaches his daughters, “Now grow up, be successful, and do well. But take all the fruits of your accomplishments and give them to others.” Even an eight-year-old would look back in confusion and ask, “Why should I do that?”

Socialists have no answer, other than “Duty.” Duty is the emotional state of a fascist. Today’s liberalism is nothing other than control freak fascism. Liberals like to parade themselves as the intellectual and sophisticated members of society. They think that because they tolerate gays (some of them are just pretending) and want to keep abortion legal, they somehow are enlightened enough to be considered superior to everyone. But socialism and liberalism are, at the core, about only one thing: Puritanical duty. It’s sickening because so many of the advocates of this socialist Puritanism are millionaire hypocrites who would never impose this regimen on themselves.

To live with such hypocrisy has to imply a profound sense of self-hatred. Nobody could depart so wildly from what he or she preaches, in practice, and have even the tiniest bit of self-respect.

Kudos to any celebrity or wealthy person who has the courage, even if only for a moment in time, to come out against the conventional insanity of our times. Thank you for sharing, Jon Lovitz. I hope more celebrities come out of the closet, and soon. Especially before this ******* Barack gets reelected.

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Special interest groups and big donors make campaign contributions because they believe that the candidate will support legislation favorable to them and their agenda.

An Electoral College Within Each State

An Electoral College Within Each State

Instead of the United States abandoning the Electoral College, state legislatures should take us in exactly the opposite direction. From now on, they should abandon a statewide popular vote for president, and instead either appoint electors directly or implement an Electoral College-type system within each state.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest