Incognito

Why is it that the political Left in America feel the need to hide their true identities...motivations...goals?  In Europe and other parts of the world, the Left does not shy away from the truth of who they are.  They are quite willing to proclaim that they are...Socialists.

But in the United States, the Left becomes apoplectic at the mere insinuation that they may have socialist leanings. They obfuscate by bickering about the meaning of the term.  They rewrite history by presenting false results of past socialist policies.  And they fraudulently portray themselves as pro-business, low tax moderates to get elected.

But this is nothing new.  From the early days of the twentieth century, socialists in America have attempted to hide their identities because of the disfavor they found among the general population.  This trend can be seen in the life of one of the patron saints of the American "Progressives," John Dewey.  As Tiffany Jones Miller recounts in her article for National Review Online:

...Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, “is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism. The prejudice against the name may be a regrettable prejudice but its influence is so powerful that it is much more reasonable to imagine all but the most dogmatic Socialists joining a new party than to imagine any considerable part of the American people going over to them.”

When the term Progressive eventually fell out of vogue due to their radical socialist policies, they changed their moniker to "Liberal." When this guise failed to hide their true intentions, they have recently tried to go back to Progressive. It's really rather pathetic.

Socialists try to muddy the waters by claiming that a policy is not socialist because it isn't exactly what the Soviets, or Cubans, or some other overtly socialist regime did.  They provide their own very narrow definitions of socialism to prove that they themselves are not, indeed, socialists.  They deride anyone who claims their policies are socialist by saying, "You do not even know what socialism is."

Well...good try, but socialism is not a monolithic set of principles, but rather a range of principles with origins in the French Revolution and with the philosophies of Rousseau, Hegel, Proudhon and others.  These philosophies combined into a school of thought that gave birth to many different variations of socialism and communism.  The Socialist Party USA's web site lists eight different main branches of socialism as: Class Struggle Socialism, Religious Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Social Democracy, Councilism, Socialist Humanism, Anarchism and Eclectic Socialism.  All of these branches have their own bent on the basic socialist philosophies.

Another diversion used by the Left is to say that because people use the terms socialism, communism and Marxism interchangeably just proves that they don't know what they are talking about.  Well, apparently, then, neither did Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (the authors of The Communist Manifesto).  They did not  make firm distinctions between communism and socialism.  They actually referred to their body of ideas as "a scientific socialism."  And in fact, another name for Class Struggle Socialism is Marxist Socialism.  According to the book Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society, by Raymond Williams, some accounts have it that the use of the words "socialism" or "communism" was related to the  religious attitudes in a culture. Europeans  liked "communism" but the English preferred "socialism" because it didn't sound so close to "communion" with it's Catholic overtones.  But by 1847, according to Engels, "Socialism" was respectable on the continent and "Communism" was for the working class.  So, in essence, the whole argument draws false dichotomies and is useless to an honest discussion.

So why do the Leftists shy away from the label of socialist?  Why don't they take off the masks and be honest about who they are and what they stand for?  If they believe their ideas are valid and noble, why don't they openly state them and let the people decide?

Ah...but therein lies the issue.  The Left truly believes, and will admit amongst themselves, that you, I and the vast majority of the general populace are too stupid to understand that their way is best.  We must, they think, be lead by the elite intelligentsia.  This idea was clearly stated by Woodrow Wilson's chief propagandist Edward Bernays, who's books were used by Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels.  Bernays states:

"Ours must be a leadership democracy, administered by the 'intelligent minority' who know how to regiment and guide the masses. The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality."

Or, to bring it up to date, President Obama's Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, states it this way, "Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there's a lot that can be done to manipulate them."  It is because of  this attitude that the left does not care that Americans “by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal.”  To them, this is to be expected, it is only the few elite that are intelligent enough to be "liberal."  This is why they "never waste a good crisis" and use them to scare us idiots into submission.  It is why they believe in central planning and that only they can redistribute wealth properly.  They are the smart ones after all.

The Left will never own up to their true intentions.  They will always treat the general citizenry as if we are just stupid Homer Simpsons who must be manipulated and ruled like the cattle that they believe that we are.  But, it is us Homers who have the power in this country...and their masks have slipped. We see them for who they are.  And now it's time we teach them a few things about how our country really works.

A Glorious Dream

Today, the day set aside  to honor the memory, life, accomplishment and character of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is wonderful time to revisit his most famous speech.  From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963...the "I Have A Dream" speech.

Many things have been said and written about Dr. King throughout the years.  Some elevate him to sainthood...others denigrate him as immoral and a philanderer.  In the fog of the passing years, he has too often just become a symbol for political gain...or a reason for a day off from work or school.  But Dr. King was simply a man, like any other...not a perfect man by any means...but a man of uncommon conviction and dedication to his righteous cause, a cause for which he gave his life.

Many today, from both sides of the political spectrum, would seek to take up his mantle, but they already live in a world that he only dreamed of...and helped to bring about.  They do not know the intense and obvious hatred that was hurled at him as he followed his cause.  They do not know the extreme environment of violence in which he walked, while always exhorting others to take the high and moral road, as in the excerpt from the speech below:

"But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."

He was not a perfect man, as far as I know there has only been one perfect man who ever walked this earth.  But he was a man, an individual, who saw injustice...who saw pain and suffering...and who saw the promise of this great republic being denied to so many of it's citizens...and said I can do something..."I have a dream."  And his dream would not be denied.

Take some time on this day set aside to honor Dr. King's legacy to reflect on our past...to reflect on his accomplishments and the context in which he performed them.  Take some time to watch his most famous and important speech and appreciate his Glorious Dream.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Hypocrisy! - REDUX

In March of last year, I posted an article about the hypocrisy of the Democrats in the Senate.  I had attached a video that I think needs to be pulled out again in light of the Democrats' latest hypocrisy. Last March the issue was the use of reconciliation.  The video documents the response of several prominent Democrats in the Senate to George W. Bush's request for the use of this procedural device to approve judicial appointments with a simple (51 vote), rather than a "super" (60 vote) majority.  That he asked the Senate to change the rules to fill vacant judicial seats was decried as the most heinous assault on the republic that could be imagined  The Senate rules and traditions, they screeched, were sacrosanct and cannot be changed.  However, when they wanted to use it to pass Obamacare, it was fine...just common sense and good government.

Now they are at it again.  Now that the Democrats don't have as firm a grip on Congress that they had before the November elections, it's no big deal to change the rules to suit their needs.  What they want to do now is change the rules so that the minority party in the Senate (currently the Republicans) cannot hold up legislation through the use of the filibuster.  Notice in the video that they specifically say that the filibuster is needed and that the minority party should be able to slow progress of a bill.

Once again, the hypocrisy is stunning.  Do these people have no idea of the age in which they live?  Do they not know that the documentation of their past statements and actions is easily found on the Internet...or do they think we are all too stupid to see it?  Or...is this the reason they want Net Neutrality so bad...so they can limit the access to such evidence?  I'm not sayin'...but I'm just sayin'.

A Little Perspective

Two recent articles brought home the importance of keeping a little perspective through all of the current political and economic turmoil. The first one, The American 21st Century by Victor Davis Hanson makes the point that we have seen bad times before, and somehow survived...even thrived. He gives examples of times, such as the Great Depression, when Americans and others were perdicting doom on America. These were times when we began to doubt our future and standing in the world...as many do today. Hanson helps our perspective with two important points:

"Amid all this doom and gloom, two factors are constant over the decades. First, America goes through periodic bouts of neurotic self-doubt, only to wake up and snap out of it. Indeed, indebted Americans are already bracing for fiscal restraint and parsimony as an antidote to past profligacy.

Second, decline is relative and does not occur in a vacuum. As Western economic and scientific values ripple out from Europe and the United States, it is understandable that developing countries like China, India, and Brazil can catapult right into the 21st century. But that said, national strength is still measured by the underlying hardiness of the patient — its demography, culture, and institutions — rather than by occasional symptoms of ill health."

The second article, Apocalypse, a video blog by Paleofuture.tv, reminds us that people have been warning about the collapse of society and the end of the world for a long time. It discusses how old, dystopian classics like The Late Great Planet Earth, Future Shock, and The Population Bomb have become seen as "campy" today because, of course, none of the predictions came anywhere close to being true.  So Al Gore's, An Inconvenient Truth or movies like The Day After Tomorrow and the myriad of shows on the 2012 Prophecies are nothing new...and will probably be seen as campy in the not-too-distant future.

So, yes we go through bad times periodically.  There are pockets of economic downturns and regional disasters from time-to-time.  But, if we can keep a wider perspective, beyond a current catastrophe to a broader historical view, we can take comfort that things will probably get better.  This is an observation I've made many times...people seem not to be able to see the forest for the trees...cannot see more that a few months in the past or future.  This myopic view of events can cause people to seem silly and just a little schizophrenic. As Matt Novak put it so well at the end of the video:

"Every generation has it's own challenges. Climate change, hunger, homelessness...all these things are very real problems we need to address.  But, if you're going to be making predictions about how we're getting dumber because of technology, or that we need to stock up on spam and gold bars and guns for apocalypse bunkers, don't be surprised if some smarmy punk from the future pulls out your old clips and we all get a good chuckle out of them."

Both of these articles remind us that, as the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun.  We've seen it before...we've been through it before...and we survived.  But that doesn't mean that we should simply say que sera sera and ignore everything that is happening around us either. Part of the advantage of gaining a broader, historical view is that you can see trends and cycles that take years and even decades to play out.  It is not usually the short-term actions or occurrences that cause the most damage, but the long term.

One constant in the history of America, through good times and bad, is the trend toward larger, more powerful and more intrusive government.  This trend usually happens very incrementally.  Many don't even recognize it when it is happening...it's a death by a thousand cuts. Sometimes, as with the Health Care bill (and the Obama administration in general) they try to accelerate the trend. But, this usually elicits a strong response from the voters.

No one act, law or regulation by government will cause the end of our freedom or the collapse of our economy...but look back over the years and see how our freedoms have been eroded...see the usurpation of power...the corruption that has taken over government.  It is in this view that you can truly see what we have lost...not in apocalyptic, destructive occurrences, but by the constant pounding  of the waves against the foundations of our society.

This is why we, as citizens, must insist that government expansion be not only stopped, but reversed.  This goal will only come about with diligence and a long-term view and commitment.  It will not be accomplished in one or even a few victories.  But, if we are to stop the erosion of our rights, we must move back toward our founding principles and rebuild the shores of our liberty.  Don't get defeated by one loss, or bill, or issue.  Don't get too comfortable or cocky with one win.  Take the wins you can get; learn from the losses and keep your eye on the ultimate goal.

So, Chicken Little, take heart.  The sky is not falling...today.  But keep a wary eye on the shores.