Who’s Monkeying Around?

Until yesterday, here was the definition of “monkey with” found in the Merriam Webster dictionary: “informal: to handle or play with (something) in a careless way : to monkey around with (something); I told you not to monkey with the lawn mower.”  Websters and The Free Dictionary also include the term “monkey up” as used in terms of computing “to hack together hardware for a particular task, especially a one-shot job.  Connotes an extremely crufty and consciously temporary solution.” It seems that the terms monkey up and monkey around are synonymous, but that monkey up is used more often with computer fixes while monkey around is used in other circumstances. (See The Free Dictionary).

The Free Dictionary defines “monkey around” as: “To waste time or procrastinate by doing something unproductive or unhelpful; to fool around or spend time idly.  Would you quit monkeying around and give me a hand cleaning the house?” The meaning of “monkey around” is defined by vocabulary.com as “do random, unplanned work or activities or spend time idly,”  and explained by that site as: “When you monkey around, you waste time. When you monkey around with something, you often fiddle with it in an attempt to fix it or figure it out.”  Dictionary.com, in defining the verb “monkey” includes the following informal usage: “to play or trifle idly; fool (often followed by around or with).”

The term “monkey wrench gang” was made famous by Edward Abbey’s novel of the same name.  That book involved the use of sabotage by the gang to protest environmentally damaging activities in the Southwest.  The term "monkey wrench" has since come to mean any sabotage, activism, law-making, or law-breaking to preserve wilderness, wild spaces and ecosystems.  There was even a movie, released in 2016, titled “Monkey Up” about children befriending a talking monkey who wanted to be a movie star.

None of the definitions or other usages include any reference to the use of the phrase as a racial slur.  Indeed, in 2008 at a campaign speech in Ohio, then candidate Obama used the phrase:  “It’s not as if it’s just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past.  Sometimes Democrats have, too.”  No one complained that this was some sort of racist code word or racial slur.

But, all of this was before Florida gubernatorial nominee Ron DeSantis, in an interview following his primary victory, said, “The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state. That is not going to work. That’s not going to be good for Florida.”

Now, suddenly, the phrase is “a racist dog whistle”  according to his opponent, the Democrat party, and many other leftist commentators including much of the main stream media.   And, having given the phrase this new meaning, the same people now cite that new definition as proof that Mr. DeSantis along with his party and supporters are all racist.

This most recent discovery by the Left of a perhaps poor word choice to be something more sinister than simply that – an innocent word choice – is an all too common attack and silencing technique used by the Left.   It seems that they are constantly on the hunt for anything that their opponents might say that can be used against them.  I don’t know about the Left, but I don’t look for code words and “dog whistles” when I listen to someone speak.  I just try to hear and understand the substance of what they are saying.  Sometimes all the words expressing that substance are well chosen, but more often all are not.  But rather than nit-pick and look for a sinister meaning in an individual word, I would rather understand the overall meaning and substance and then agree or disagree with that.  Hence, to me, the DeSantis statement suggested it would be a bad idea to turn to socialism; it was not a call to racism or racists.

It is often said that we see others through our own eyes.  Perhaps it is the Left that uses code words for their followers and so are looking for similar code words in use by their opponents.  Perhaps it is the Left who sees everything through the lens of racial hatred.  Perhaps it is the Left that is overly sensitive, fearful, or even paranoid that everywhere they turn, every word they hear is intended as a personal and ad hominem attack on them.   Perhaps they see everything as an attack because everything they do is intended as an attack on their opponents.

The problem with these attacks on words and phrases is that until the moment of awakening to their evilness (usually when spoken by an opponent whom the Left wants to attack), no one knows that they are “forbidden” or that they will be attacked for using them.  It has a way of chilling any kind of open speech and discussion; one must not only worry about prior censorship, but their until then unobjectionable words may also be subject to attack after the fact.   Then those words will be taken out of context: how often does the media quote the entire words of DeSantis instead of just saying he used “monkey up” to refer to his Black opponent(which in itself is an inaccurate characterization of his sentence)?

Can we just please grow up? Instead of nitpicking every imperfection of opponents, let’s get beyond that and look at the substance of the opponents’ policies and actions.  I am reminded of the kindergarten response to name calling, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”  Can we please get over the manufactured outrage at misperceived name-calling and move on to addressing the real sticks and stones of policy and action?  Thank you.

Why Re-lowering the Flag was a Mistake

This has nothing to do with the person John McCain; it is about the rule of law.

Senator John McCain died on Saturday, August 25.  The flag over the White House was flown at half mast on August 25 and 26.  On Monday, August 27, the flag returned to full mast.   

When the flag was seen at full staff Monday morning, the Media, the anti-Trump crowd, and others who feel strongly about McCain’s legacy and/or his service to our country went nuts.  Like little children throwing a temper fit because they didn’t get candy, they screamed and hollered on every social and mainstream media outlet possible.  

Late Monday the White House apparently caved to this uproar and the flag was again lowered to half staff.  The President then signed a proclamation ordering flags remain at half-mast until McCain’s burial. .

This may seem like a small concession well made in light of the constant attacks of seemingly more serious nature against which the White House must continuously stand firm.  Here is why it is no minor matter.

The United States Code which is the codified laws of the United States of America, has a section on the flag.  That is found in Title 4 of the Code.  Chapter one of that Title addresses the flag and section 7 of chapter 1 addresses how the flag is to be displayed.  Subsection (m) of section 7 explains the length of time that the flag should fly at half mast for various dignitaries.  That subsection states that “By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and [specified others].”   It then goes on to provide specific times for the half-mast for various individuals, in part stating:  

The flag shall be flown at half-staff 30 days from the death of the President or a former President; 10 days from the day of death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department,  a former Vice President, or the Governor of a State, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress.

John McCain qualifies as a Member of Congress for purposes of this section:  Subsection (3) of Section 7(m) reads:  “the term ‘Member of Congress’ means a Senator, a Representative, a Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.”

Thus, under the law, Senator McCain’s flag was to be flown at half-mast on August 25 and 26; it was indeed flown at half mast on those days. The law did not require it to be flown at half mast on the 27^th, the day in question - the day on which it was flown at full staff.

Some senators are beloved, others are not.  Regardless, all are entitled to have the flag flown at half-mast for the time prescribed by the statute.  Just because a particular senator may be more popular or more beloved or have served longer than should not entitle that senator to more time.  Nor should temporary political agendas which use the deceased senator as their tool result in disparate treatment. 

And yes, a president can sign a special proclamation, as President Trump has now done, calling for the flag to remain at half-mast until burial.  But then the law becomes less certain.  Four sitting senators died during Obama’s presidency.  He signed such proclamations for three.  There is no record of why the fourth was treated differently, but he was.  The crucial point is that based on that decision, the deaths were not treated with the equal respect that the law provides.

Granting more time for the flag at half-mast to John McCain adds to such disparate treatment; the rule of law has been bent.  Was it to placate political enemies who are using McCain’s stands against some of the President’s policies as ammunition in their fight against the president?  Was it to honor McCain’s military service?  Was it because he was a prisoner of war?  We don’t know, and hence, rather than a certain law applicable to all we are left with what appears to be subjective judgment; judgement which paves the way for more subjectivity in the future.

Suddenly the law becomes unclear.  There is no standard.  If the rules are bent in this instance, why not the next?    And who will we leave to make the decision in each case – a president with whom we may or may not agree, or the loudest voices, or some other power group?  That is the beauty of our rule of law:  the decision has already been made by all of the people through their elected representatives and it treats all the same, regardless of the political whims of the day.

I find it especially interesting that many of those loud voices against the White House’s statutorily proper action came from those who are often heard asserting that everyone must have equal treatment under the law and that this President does not follow the law.    But, then, I suspect that the real purpose for many was just to use this phony “wrong” by the President as another way to attack him.  The President was following the law, a law that, by so clearly laying out specific times of half-mast for specific position, makes sure that any and all who have served in each particular position are treated equally.

While how long a flag flies at half-mast may seem to be a minor matter, failure to respect the law is setting a dangerous precedent.  That is why I think that the White House’s reversal late Monday was a mistake.   If it is OK to bend this rule or apply it differently in this case, why not the next?  And then the next?  And then why not other laws as well, until there is no predictability or certainty.  Change the laws following our process of doing so, but don’t demand that they be bent or differently applied because of this or that political and temporary agenda.

It doesn’t matter how one feels about Senator McCain.  We have a law, and, just as McCain fought to uphold our rule of law, we should all respect and honor our laws.  We should not alter their application to appease some sort of temper tantrum or because we think differently about one individual than another.  Once we begin to bend the rules at the whim of one or another powerful force we are on the way to finding ourselves with no rules at all. 

The Drum Beat of a Manufactured Crisis

Today’s news reports many screaming about the crisis of Trump and of our government and of our country.   Actually, this screaming, this drum beat, has been going on since 2016 when Mr. Trump was declared the winner of the presidential election.  It has simply now reached a fever pitch.

But, let’s consider what exactly that crisis is and why.  We are really, perhaps, reaching the culmination of the non-bloody coup that began when Mr. Trump became President Trump.    While we now know that at least in part that coup was well orchestrated by some – most notably a variety of FBI officials – I think that others just got carried along by the rhetoric that, combined with their disappointment in their candidate’s loss, took up the banner that proclaimed anything and everything associated with President Trump is a crisis for our country.    

As the drum beat increases it begins to sound like a real crisis.  But, is it?  Or are those disgruntled Trump-haters simply finding crisis everywhere they look, even when similar events in any other context would be overlooked if not accepted.  (See the treatment of Hillary’s campaign violations vs. Trump’s alleged violations; see Obama’s separation of immigrant families and deportation of illegals vs. the same actions by Trump; see Obama’s scrubbing of security clearances vs. the same actions by Trump; see Obama’s meetings with Russia and promises of “more flexibility” if reelected vs. the “horror” of Trump meeting with Putin;  see the overlooking or minor penalties for past tax evasions vs. the treatment of Paul Manafort for similar evasions long before he was associated with Trump;  see the overlooking of gaffes by Obama (there are 57 states, 10,000 died in Kansas tornado when actually only 12 died, proclaiming he was in St. Louis when actually in Kansas, referring to WW2 Nazi concentration camps as Polish, just to name a few) while pointing out every similar gaffe or typo of Donald Trump and treating it as proof of his incapacity;  see the tolerance if not encouragement of violent words and sometimes actions against Trump and his supporters while abhorring even the slightest negative appellation against anyone not affiliated with Trump.)

Of course, a big part of this manufactured crisis is the “investigation” into Russian collusion.  At the behest of those who were still reeling and recovering from the fact that their candidate lost, in May of 2017 Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate.  That’s the same Mueller who it has since been revealed had ties to the very same FBI agents whom have been shown to have biases against and perhaps have been actively working to remove President Trump. 

Mueller appointed a team made up almost entirely of individuals opposed to Donald Trump.  That is not surprising considering Mueller’s role.  He is an attorney – in this case acting as a prosecutor.  One must understand that attorneys are, in the end, simply hired guns.  That is, they represent a client regarding a particular case and their purpose is to end that case positively for their client.  Now, of course, attorneys can have good and noble aspirations.  They may believe in the cause.   They do a lot of good in the world.  But in the end, they are working for a client with the purpose of winning that client’s case.  And so, as a good attorney, Mr. Mueller will want to prove collusion or at least that Trump is somehow in the wrong – that is the case he is being paid to handle.  And, there is past, reported history of his behavior in other cases indicating that he will do almost anything – certainly push the ethical envelope – in order to win. 

So, we have an investigation that has cost us, the taxpayers, millions of dollars, but which has found no evidence of collusion.  But, in its underlying real interest of delegitimizing President Trump and removing him from office by any means necessary, the investigation goes on.  It uses gestapo techniques to harass people in any way associated with Trump, find some sort of possible crime committed long before Trump was even a candidate and in most instances unrelated to Trump, and then use that as threatening leverage to get the target to plead to a crime and then let the media run with how this somehow implicates Trump and is another reason to impeach him.  The drum beat gets louder and louder as the team tries to get more and more people to turn or appear to turn on Trump.

People may wonder why Mueller ignores some possible crimes that his investigation reveals while only going after anything that might result in delegitimizing President Trump.  The answer is:  that is his job.  And sadly, it results in unequal justice (see for example, Kimberly Strassel, When Justice is Partial, https://outline.com/cSBkN8).  Mr. Mueller is a cog, albeit an important one, in the attempted coup that has been taking place against President Trump since his inauguration.  He is important because, like any prosecutor, he can not only “turn” witnesses, but he can get them to “compose” – that is, when a witness is threatened and “squeezed” he may reveal factual information that may help the prosecution, but he may also create or “compose” information that will both help the prosecutor and help the witness to avoid threatened punishment.

Let’s face it. The worst that Mueller has yet come up with is that Trump may have been involved in a payment to a stripper that he allegedly had an affair with long before he was ever a candidate.  There was an agreement that in exchange for money the stripper would not go to the press with her story.  She breached that legal contract.  And, apparently such “hush money” payments are quite common (and not illegal) among the rich and famous as well as in the world of tabloid news.  Certainly, this is not pretty, but it is not Russian collusion, it is not evidence of a “crisis” of government.  If true, it is evidence that Mr. Trump has some possibly disgusting incidents in his past.  But, then, don’t we all?  And, if the payment were even in part made to not hurt Trump’s chances in the election, it is doubtful if it was a campaign finance violation and certainly does not rise to the level of the payments by the Hillary campaign to Fusion GPS to directly affect the election with unproven allegations against Trump (You will recall that is the same Fusion GPS whose dossier was used by the anti-Trump actors within the FBI to get FISA warrents that allowed them to surveil Trump and his campaign officials.)

Yet, the drum beat just gets louder and louder.  It silences any objective and thoughtful questioning.  Crisis, what crisis?  Oh, if they keep screaming it so loudly it simply must be true.  The sky is falling, the sky is falling.  The crisis is here, the crisis is here. 

No, the crisis is not here.  Or if it is, it is that there is a silent coup going on right before our eyes.  And its method is to use any and everything to make us believe that we are in a crisis that will only be remedied by the removal of President Trump.  And yet, if we let that coup succeed, then consider what sort of precedent that sets.  Whenever enough people do not like a president they can simply manufacture a crisis to remove him. 

Our democratic form of government is by election, not coup, and not by the constant drum beat of manufactured crisis.  Don’t be caught up in the drug of the drum; instead, see the crisis for what it is – a scream of pain from those who have lost their power and influence in a legitimate and democratic election.   Close your ears to the drum and listen instead to the objective reason of your mind.

Principle or Partisanship?

One has to wonder whether the ever-present outrage of the Left against Trump and his supporters is a result of some underlying principles that they hold dear or simply pure outrage that he and not they are in power.  Let me suggest that the outrage is far more likely partisan – a reflection of their real anger at having lost an election and with that loss their power as well.  By cloaking their outrage in the guise of standing for universal principles and humane values, they perhaps hope to hide the ugly partisanship that they are practicing.

Here are just a few of many examples of actions or policies that the Left claims to find abhorrent today, but which they previously accepted and often advocated.

Refugees and Immigrants

I suspect that everyone is aware that President Obama separated families and sent illegal immigrants home.  Somehow that only became cause for alarm or impeachment when Trump became president.

But, there are other examples in this area.  In 1975 many Democrats including then Senator Biden and then Governor Brown of California argued for a ban on Vietnamese refugees.  Governor Brown sounded the alarm about the huge toll that the refugees would take on his state as he worked to keep them from entering the country.  Yes, this is the same Gov. Brown who now welcomes immigrants, both legal and illegal, to his state and many of the same people who now assert that enforcement of immigration laws by President Trump is inhumane.

So, apparently when President Trump enforces our immigration laws with an even hand, he is guilty of treason, of being like Hitler, of destroying America; but, when the Left enforces those laws or works to keep legitimate refugees out of the country it is perfectly fine.

Security Clearances

President Trump revoked the security clearance of Brennan who no longer works for the government in any capacity, has no need for a security clearance, and was using (and perhaps misusing) his clearance for personal gain.  Those who are again finding this somehow treasonous or an impeachable offense have apparently forgotten that President Obama also revoked security clearances.         
       In 2013 James Clapper (who is now outraged by the revocation of Brennan’s clearance) was concerned about “threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information.”  The Obama administration then began a review in order to scrub and remove a number of security clearances.

So, apparently national security and possible misuse of security clearances is something that a president can be concerned about unless that president is President Trump.

Sex, Hush Money, and Underage Victims

It is alleged that Trump, before becoming president, paid former consenting sex partners to keep silent about their affairs.  Again, we hear this is treasonous or calls for impeachment.  Where was the outrage when, until recently, the Congress had a fund out of which they paid to silence individuals claiming sexual abuse or harassment by their members?

When there were unproven allegations that Republican candidate Roy Moore had improper behavior with minors decades ago, this was cause for the Left to raise the alarm not only against Moore but against anyone who argued he should have a fair day in court and considered innocent until proven guilty.   But wait – these are the same people who for decades have defended Roman Polanski who pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13 year old child.  And where is the outrage this week against the MeToo spokeswoman who it has now been revealed had sex with a minor.  These allegations which can be backed up with actual evidence or guilty pleas are apparently not as heinous as the allegations against Moore which lack such solid evidence.  Could it be that there are different standards for Republicans and Democrats?  Could it be that the outrage against Moore was simply an effective way to campaign against him?

We have a similar situation in the way that the accusations against Bill Clinton were treated and the sudden “woke-ness” when the allegations are against a Republican.  Sure sounds like partisanship to me.

Russia

This is a big one, but I will only cite enough to make my point here.  First, there is just the simple outrage when Trump meets with any foreign leader, but especially when he met and suggests future meetings with the head of Russia.   Yet, where was the outrage when Obama met with Putin and other leaders.  It was not labeled as un-American or treasonous as Trump’s meetings are.  And, while the Left daily asserts some sort of collusion between Trump and Russia in their  hunt to find evidence for those assertions, they seem to have forgotten that in 2012 Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Putin after the election.

Not even an eyelash was batted when Obama made that statement.  Directly to the Russian President.  When he was President.  But, when candidate Trump at a campaign rally joked about hoping Russia would find more of his opponent’s emails, the Left sees this as some sort of verifiable proof of collusion.  I call it grasping at straws.

Campaign Finance Violations

Cohen, in his plea deal Tuesday, stated he made payments to keep quiet women who allegedly had consensual sex with Trump long before he was a candidate.  In is questionable at best whether such a payment violates campaign finance laws, but, assuming it does, and, assuming that through some sort of twisted logic that automatically pins the violation on Trump, he would not be the first candidate to violate such laws.

There are indeed allegations against Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton that sadly seem to be worthy only of being ignored by the Left.  There are allegations that the Hillary Victory Fund was a scheme to bypass campaign finance laws and allow huge donations to the Hillary campaign that were violative of those laws.  The committee committing the alleged violations was authorized by Hillary.  These alleged violations involve millions of dollars directly to her campaign, not payments of a few hundred thousand to alleged former lovers.

Once again, one sees the Left turning a blind eye to alleged violations of law by those of whom they approve while twisting and turning every law possible to attempt to convict their “enemy.”

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

In 1992 Democrat Sen. Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that if there were a Supreme Court vacancy, then President Bush should not name a nominee or, if he did, no confirmation hearings should be scheduled until after the November presidential election.  This became known as the “Biden rule” and was apparently just fine with Democrats until Republicans enforced it in 2016 when then President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  They did not want to wait until November then.  And now, as the Brett Kavanaugh nomination moves forward, the Democrats suddenly once again embrace the Biden rule, though now in the context not of an upcoming presidential election, but a midterm election.  

So, again, do the Democrats really have a position on this, or is it just that if their person is in power we should forget the Biden rule, but if their opposition is in power then we should enforce it, in the hope that the opposition will be defeated and the Left will regain power after the election?

The above are just a few examples of partisan maneuvering couched in the guise of standing up for principles.  It is hypocritical and dishonest.  But, what is really scary is that if principles can blow with the partisan wind, who next will be on the down side?  This is the problem when people become less concerned with law and freedom and true inalienable rights, and more concerned with creating a series of fleeting values that are geared to deny power to some while simply bolstering power for others.

So, next time you hear the Left assert that it is standing up for important principles of humanity or America or freedom, take a hard look at what the real motivation is.  Is it really a stand for principle, or just for partisan power?

Quick Notes on Today’s News

There are three troubling pieces of news today – troubling for different reasons.  I will address them in the order in which the news broke – first the plea deal of Michael Cohen and the partial conviction of Paul Manafort.  I will address those two together,  then I will address the news of the death of Mollie Tibbetts allegedly at the hands of an illegal alien.

Cohen and Manafort
Today came two highly anticipated conclusions in the cases of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort.  Both men were investigated and charged as a result of Mueller’s out of control search for collusion between the president and Russia.  Cohen reached a plea and Manafort was convicted of only 8 out of 18 charges.  The convictions primarily involved tax evasion and other monetary misdeeds by the two individuals.  There was nothing even remotely related to Russian collusion.  Nonetheless, the media and the Left are going crazy connecting these two men to the president.  Their association with the president tainted them and led to their convictions, and now the media attempts to taint the president by his association with men who have been convicted.

Indeed, both men did at one time work for the President.  The investigations into them and the resultant charges would likely never have occurred but for a political inquest that is an attempt to unseat the president and in the process gathers up in its net anyone associated with the president.  Their homes and offices were raided in ways that were reminiscent of gestapo techniques.  This intimidation is an attempt to find some “dirt” on the president and this sort of inquisition is frightening.  As Dershowitz previously noted in regard to Manafort,  his crime was being associated with the president, and his trial was about getting him “to sing.”  (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/01/dershowitz_manaforts_crime_is_being_associated_with_donald_trump_trial_is_about_getting_him_to_sing.html).

This is not an argument that these men are innocent.  But it is important that these men, and especially Manafort, would likely never have had charges brought against them but for their relationships with Trump.  This is a frightening politicization of our justice system.   On The Innocence Project’s blog, John Oliver notes:  “The truth is, prosecutors have the ability to ruin lives in a second, so we need to find out who our D.A.’s are and get a sense of the policies and priorities that they are carrying out. If we do not decide ourselves what we want our criminal justice system to look like — prosecutors will decide.”  (https://www.innocenceproject.org/john-oliver-reminds-us-why-we-should-care-about-prosecutor-accountability/).   While written regarding individual prosecutors across the country, it applies equally well to the Mueller and his seemingly out of control inquisition that goes after anyone associated with the target of his hunt, his hope seemingly not justice, but to somehow, someway, destroy the president.

Mollie Tibbetts
Now to the death of Mollie Tibbetts, a young woman with a promising future whose disappearance a little over a month ago captivated the nation.  The news of her death is heartbreaking.  What adds to the outrage is that the death was apparently at the hands of someone who has been living in the country illegally – but for his ability to carry out that initial illegal entry and then his continuing illegal residence, he would not have been here to commit his illegal act against Mollie Tibbetts.

To point out that her alleged murderer is illegal is not a condemnation of all immigrants as some would suggest.  All illegal immigrants are not murderers and the condemnation of one is not a condemnation of all, just as the opposition to illegal immigrants is not an opposition to legal immigration.  But, what young Ms. Tibbetts’ death at the hands of an illegal does underscore is that our immigration system is broken if illegals such as the accused can enter and stay rather than being caught at the border and sent home.  It also points out that if borders are open as some argue they should be or if there is no enforcement of immigration laws as those who would abolish ICE would have it, then people of bad character or intent will be just as able to enter the country as those with good intent, and, even if the borders are not fully open, without ICE there would be no one to enforce the laws.

Right now thoughts and prayers need to be with Mollie Tibbetts and her family as they remember the joy of her life.  But, that life apparently ended at the hands of an illegal alien, and ultimately that part of her life must also be remembered.  Those of us who did not know her in life can honor her death by taking a hard look at immigration in this country and working to fix a broken system not based on partisan agendas, but for the good of the country as a whole and all the future Mollies and others who will live in it.

It’s All About Looks, Isn’t It?

The new movie Crazy Rich Asians is lauded, in part, because its all-Asian cast provides characters with whom Asians can identify.  It also provides actors with whom young aspiring Asian actors can identify.  In my majority Hispanic area of the country, Hispanics want schools to dump White authors for those of Hispanic origin so the students will be able to relate.  In other places the same argument is presented to replace Anglo male authors with female or Black or other authors belonging to a specific identity group.  We are told we need to have women in a variety of untraditional careers so that other women will know they can also seek those roles as well.  When Barack Obama was elected we heard Blacks saying that now their children could aspire to be president.

Can we only identify with those who share our appearance?  Is our world really that superficial?

For some reason when I was young, without ever seeing a female president or doctor I nonetheless believed I could grow up to become someone who filled one of those two professions.  When I changed my mind and decided to become a trial attorney, it never crossed my mind that the fact that I had never seen a female trial attorney would in some way prevent me from becoming one.  When I read novels by or about white males, I was somehow still able to identify with the human emotions and challenges experienced by their characters.  I could relate to something more than simply a surface and superficial identity.

Indeed, that is what makes truly great literature great:  its ability to be timeless and in a sense identity-less so that any reader in any time period will be able to identify and learn from the author’s words.  The same is true for plays, music, art forms, and movies.  Sure, it’s nice to see someone who looks like you, but isn’t it far nicer to find someone who feels like you?  And that someone, because it is deeper inner qualities that are being identified, can come in any size, shape, or color. 

Isn’t it better if our heroes hold deep and meaningful qualities to which we can aspire rather than just hold our skin color or our sex?  Have we all lost the strength of our own identities, our inner and individual selves, so that the only identity we know is that with which we have a superficial resemblance?

Sadly, when the superficiality of much of today’s culture is mixed with the epidemic of identity politics we seem only able to provide superficial heroes that only further reinforce our focus on appearance.  This leaves behind the noble qualities of humanity that we would do better to aspire to.   As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once suggested, let us try to focus on the character of one’s soul, not the color of one’s skin.  In doing so we will find our truest and most lasting heroes:  significant, robust, and truly human role models to which we could all genuinely aspire. 

A Suggestion of Mind Reform (Are you being brainwashed?)

“Who is the slayer, who is the victim? Speak.”
-Sophocles

Today on one of my social media feeds someone posted memes implying that our current government is the equivalent of Nazi Germany and asserting that now is the time for people to show what they would have done/will do if given the chance to stop the “Third Reich.”  Memes that imply anyone who does not stand against President Trump or his policies is the guilty equivalent of Hitler or other evils.

In addition to revealing a complete lack of education about or understanding of history (both past and present), these sorts of posts reflect a technique used in classic brainwashing.  The question, however, is:  are those posting, reposting, and otherwise repeating such sentiments the brainwasher, the brainwashed, or both?

Brainwashing is an extreme form of the social influence that affects all of us daily.  Psychologist Robert Jay Lifton, an early researcher into the area, called techniques of brainwashing “mind reform.”  He identified specific stages in the process of this mind reform.   Looking at the process it is hard not to see it reflected in the anti-Trump rhetoric and behavior that abounds in today’s society.

Brainwashing or Mind Reform begins with assaulting and breaking down the self of the victims in order to convince them that they are not who they think they are.  Victims are berated with assertions that deny their beliefs about themselves:  You are not a true Christian; not a true patriot; not a good parent; not a good citizen; not truly compassionate; not defending freedom.  They are under attack being told: you are wrong; you are stupid; you are racist to think as you do, etc. They are told their beliefs are responsible for suffering, both theirs and others, both past and present. 

Under such constant attack the victims become exhausted and confused to the point that their beliefs seem less solid and they (with the brainwasher’s help) begin to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt and shame for the beliefs that make them who they are.  With this state of mind it becomes easier to change the values and beliefs of the victims. 

The brainwasher will push the victims to denounce family, friends, peers, and others who share the same “wrong” beliefs as the victim.  As the victims begin to separate from their past the groundwork is laid for building a new personality.  As the constant assault on identity along with the creation of guilt reaches its peak and the victims wonder “who am I? What am I supposed to do?”, the brainwasher will set up the temptation for the victims to convert to another belief system that will save them from their misery.  Thus ends the first stage of “mind reform.”

I would argue that the anti-Trumpers are fairly successful at carrying out this phase.  Those who do not hold their beliefs are constantly berated for those beliefs in a way that attacks their very identity.  They are encouraged to carry guilt for any wrongs in the world that they are led to believe are the result of their “wrong” values and beliefs.   Their values and their very selves are demeaned, they are rejected, and as they begin to question who they are, the value system of the anti-Trumpers is held out to them as right, good, and a way to make themselves both right and good.

The second phase of the brainwashing process involves several steps that create for the victims the possibility of salvation from their prior wrongs and from their guilt.  As the victims begin to lean toward the new set of values and beliefs offered by the brainwasher, the victims will be shown kindness and reprieve from the assaults they have been experiencing towards themselves.  They are thus faced with the contrast between guilt and pain versus the sudden relief they now experience.  They will be offered the opportunity to “confess” as a means of relieving their guilt and pain. 

Victims will likely not be able to identify specifically what they are guilty of, but will simply feel a heavy burden of being wrong.  The brainwasher will encourage the victims to attach the guilt and sense of wrongness to the belief system that the brainwasher is in the process of replacing.  The victims will begin to believe that it is the old belief system itself that is the cause of their shame and hurt, and will understand that the new system is, at the very least, a way to escape that agony.   

The idea that the root cause of guilt and pain is an external ideology allows the victims to place blame for their pain and “wrongness” beyond themselves:  “it’s not me, it’s my beliefs that were externally imposed on me.”  The victims can assert that they themselves are not bad and that they can escape their prior badness or wrongness by simply escaping the bad or wrong belief system.  All they have to do is denounce the people and institutions associated with that belief system.

This second phase of the mind reform process certainly explains the 100% denouncement and hatred of Trump as well as denouncements of our country, its government, its laws, and anyone who shows any sign of support for those things.  Those who have been convinced that their legitimate beliefs are racist or in some way evil or that they are responsible for the suffering of others, now have the opportunity to release their pain by simply denouncing their former beliefs, including those beliefs upon which this country was founded, and joining the anti-Trumpers.

The final phase of brainwashing or mind reform involves the rebuilding of the Self.  The rejection by the victims of the old ideology leaves a vacuum into which the new ideology can be placed.  That new ideology is presented as the path to good.  The victims are encouraged to make a conscious choice in favor of the new system, and, once that is done, the previous attacks on the victims’ identities that caused the victims pain are replaced with welcoming comfort, collegiality, and a sense of belonging.  In this way the brainwasher reinforces the positive choice of the new ideology:  the new identity is safe and “good” unlike the uncomfortable and “bad” former ideology.  The victims will shed all allegiance to the old ideology and fully affirm the new as they are accepted and anchored firmly into the new order.

Lifton and subsequent psychologists who identify the steps of brainwashing and how it leads to a profound state of suggestibility also discuss why some people are more susceptible than others.  A strong sense of identity and self-confidence along with faith in a higher power can assist a targeted victim from detaching from and resisting the process.  I would submit that in this age of social media and its companion need for social acceptance and group belonging, an age in which social influence has such great power, that taking simple social influence to the next level of actual mind reform is perhaps a not too difficult task for those seeking to do so.  That is, for many the need for social approval and acceptance is so strong and so often accompanied by self-doubt, that their very identities will be easy targets for the brainwasher.

I don’t know where those who repost and repeat the ugly anti-Trump rhetoric are in this process of mind reform.  Are they fully accepted into the cult of anti-Trump, or are they trying to get there?  I do believe they are at least past the first phase and either because they are full members or in an effort to continue assuaging the guilt they feel for their old “bad” ideology, they are trying to impose the same efforts that worked on them on those who still hold those “bad” beliefs. 

Regardless of whether they are the brainwasher, the victims, or both, they are filled with either fear or hate of all who do not share the anti-Trump agenda.  Moreover, they are incapable of having any kind of dialog about the varying ideologies that must always exist in a democracy.  Reposting memes, repeating phrases that attempt to assign guilt to those who hold the “wrong” beliefs, makes them complicit in the brainwashing of new victims. 

In nearly any attempt at conversation that I have had with one of these at least semi-brainwashed individuals, rather than carry on a discussion their approach is to repeatedly ask me questions that take this two-part form:  (1) How can you hold that view when (2) it reveals you as racist/a white supremacist/without compassion/stupid/ignorant/without humanity or compassion/etc.?  Such a question presumes that my beliefs are indeed as labeled (e.g. they are racist, etc.).  If the questioner has already determined that, then there is little room for dialog.  I am immediately put on the defensive, expected to feel guilt and shame (sounds like the first phase of brainwashing, doesn’t it?).  If the second half of the question already has an answer (the view is racist) then the first part also already has an answer – I could only hold that view if I am indeed racist. 

And so, the attempt at brainwashing begins.  Sadly, these questions too often find victims that are likely susceptible to the anti-Trump brainwashing.  They will begin to question their identity and their beliefs and are thus well on the way to the guilt and shame that will make them willing victims of mind reform.

A real dialog might instead include questions such as:  “I don’t understand your view, could you explain it to me?”  Or even “I don’t understand why that view is not racist, but I’d like to hear why you believe it is not.”  Anything that would open up a discussion about differing views and differing ideologies.  That is far different than calling something a discussion or dialog when it is actually an attempt to create shame and guilt combined with  a predetermined judgment about a view and anyone who holds that view as being in some way “bad.”

With apology to Sophocles, I ask:   Who is the brainwasher, who is the brainwashed?  Are you a victim?  Are you knowingly or unknowingly assisting in brainwashing others?  Without honestly asking these questions of ourselves and others and honestly answering, there is little hope for dialog or tolerance, two key pieces of a free and democratic society.

Ignorance, Stupidity, or Just Simple Brainwashing?

Do people really believe what they spout, post, and repost?  Do they have any comprehension of what they are saying?

CNN asks the Press to speak with “one voice” against Trump.   That is in complete opposition to the role of the Press in a democracy.  It is in a dictatorship, a place where the people receive propaganda rather than information from the media, that the Press speaks with one voice.  How can anyone who understands our democracy and the Press’s role in it really call for or support such action?  Joe Concha of The Hill got it right when he noted that with its “bash Trump day” the Press is acting “like the opposition party. (http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/402095-with-bash-trump-day-press-acts-like-opposition-party).  We already have an opposition party; the role of the Press is, or should be, quite different!

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College has once again reared its ugly head as those who can’t understand why a pure majority vote did not make their candidate win or at least deny the White House to Donald Trump grasp for reasons to claim that he is "not my president."  They dismiss Trump’s election because it was by the electoral college.  Well, under our Constitution that is how we elect the president – sorry that they and their candidate didn’t understand that, but that does not make Trump’s election illegitimate.

Do these same people understand that in a pure majority rule democracy that the majority can easily completely suppress and silence the views and voices of the minority?  While some might think that a good idea now,  believing their views are the majority and they attempt to silence the president and his supporters, one wonders if they have considered how they will feel when their viewpoint is a clear minority.  We have a Democratic Republic for a reason.  In a Democratic Republic, power is held by the people but exercised through their elected representatives, including a president.  A republic will include certain rights that are inalienable (not subject to overrule by the majority) and protected by a document such as a constitution, creating rule by law rather than by pure majority. Rule purely by majority is very different:  a benevolent majority can give way to a majority that suppresses basic human rights and dignities. (See  this blog dated August 10, 2018, Debating Socialism).  I think that many people either do not understand this or choose to ignore it because it does not fit their narrative and their agenda.

I recently met with someone whom, until that meeting, I had considered to be fairly intelligent.  This person wanted to “understand” a Trump supporter.  While I had hoped for a dialogue, I felt more like a curiosity in a zoo that this individual wanted to examine, not to understand but simply to inform me how ignorant I am, how racist, how uninformed, how cruel, and what an oddity I must be.  This person wanted me to somehow either admit my faults and/or show some remorse for holding the views I do.  Every “question” began “how can you think/say…[ a policy/action/America itself] is good/benefits the country when…[the president or that position is racist/evil/incorrect/etc.] and the positions you support are [evil/racist/etc.]”  There was no dialogue.  Answering the “questions” required me to first argue the asserted statement or judgment about the president/position was incorrect; however, any facts used to support my position were dismissed as untrue or simply not accepted because not within the anti-Trump narrative.  Even if we could have gotten past that part of the question, I then had to defend how I could hold my position with the predetermined judgement that my position was both wrong and racist or evil.  This is not a dialog.  Instead it was an attempt to shame me.  This individual quoted half truths and untruths and, when presented with evidence that these were factually incorrect, nonetheless held to the position they supported. 

In any other area but Trump, I still believe that this individual would be open to hearing other positions, would fully investigate facts, would not just parrot soundbites from CNN, Facebook and Twitter.  So, it is unlikely that this behavior is stupidity.  There is some ignorance involved, but this individual would not allow such ignorance about any other topic of discussion.  I don’t know if it is true brainwashing, but something has caused this individual to completely shut off the input of any thoughts or facts or ideas that might conflict with the narrative and sound bites that were repeated to me throughout the course of the 3 hour “discussion.”

If people have reached the point where they can only blindly hate Trump and anything he does, along with anyone who supports him or any of his actions, then there is really little hope for political dialog in this country.  And that may be the reality that at least some people want.  After all, real dialog is difficult.  One must actually think and think deeply and critically.  That takes energy and effort and it is not easy.  One must question not only the thoughts, facts, and ideas put in front of them, but must also question their own ideas and positions and be willing to alter those positions if their thinking and investigations lead them to do so.

Some people seem to be perfectly content to sit back and be told what to think, whom to like and whom to hate.  It’s easy; they don’t have to think.  It's also easy to paint with a broad brush and once you have determined you dislike someone to characterize absolutely everything they say or do or support as evil. (He's a bad guy, so everything that he touches or that is connected with him must unconditionally be bad).  Then one doesn't have to grapple with complex concepts and issues.  They can live in the moment without thinking about things like long term consequences of their actions or inactions.  They can look at the world as if it is all just entertainment for their pleasure and they can allow themselves to be consumed with hatred of any who do not spout and conform to the narrative that they have memorized and preach.  They have also placed themselves in a position in which they are easy to manipulate and likely to be used to further someone else’s agenda.

Perhaps this is the zombie apocalypse:  these people are not living but are sleepwalking zombies.  I don’t know if it is ignorance, stupidity, brainwashing, or something else that has really stopped so many from thinking, from using their brains.   What I do know is that for the good of our country and the future of our world I want them to wake up!  They may not like the president, but he is not their enemy, he is not the devil, he is not evil personified.  They need to stop believing and parroting every hateful meme and instead educate themselves about this country, what this president is and is not doing, and what previous administrations have and have not done.  They need to give up the hysteria and hyperbole, use their brains, educate themselves about issues so that they can intelligently take a stand for or against positions on those issues rather than simply judging and name calling those with whom they are told to disagree.   They need to open themselves up to dialog.  They need to use their brains and THINK! 

Short Notes on the First Amendment and Today’s News

     The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states in full:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
                                                                           ~
     Losing a security clearance when one no longer holds a job that requires it is not an infringement of one’s first amendment rights.  Those rights include speech, assembly, religion.  They do not include the right to be informed of national classified secrets and other information and use that to further one’s position as a partisan pundit.  Mr. Brennan is free to say his rights were infringed, but in reality they were not.
                                                                          ~
     The hysteria around “fake news” is partly fueled by a lack of clarity or agreement as to what is “news.”  Traditionally, news has been a full, fair and objective reporting of facts and noteworthy information relevant to an issue or recent event.   That was not to be confused with opinion which is someone’s view or judgement about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.  Opinion can easily become propaganda when one uses information in a biased or misleading manner in order to publicize a particular political agenda or point of view.
     Today, news and opinion are less clearly defined, nor are they separated and are rarely distinguished.  In many cases both have taken on an entertainment rather than an informative role, as well as, in some cases, a propaganda role.  The term “fake news” seems to include instances where news media present incomplete information or use weighted language and in effect present opinion while calling it news. 
     The freedom of the press includes the gathering of facts and the right to present those facts as well as to present opinions about those facts.  The problem is that one should not be presented as if it were the other.  We, as a free people, depend upon the press to keep us informed, but that information must begin with a clarity of what is objective news and what is opinion.  The press is derelict in its duties when it (whether intentionally or negligently) confuses the two.
                                                                             ~
     Freedom of peaceable assembly is not limited only to certain view points.  There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.   Democracy depends upon a free and full market place of ideas, even those that most of us find abhorrent.  Let all ideas be presented and have confidence that the people are capable of determining which should be accepted and which rejected.  That is freedom.
                                                                            ~
     When it comes to speech, let’s not be hypocrites; let’s have the same standards for what we will or will not find acceptable.  For example, why is it not OK for Trump to use the word “dog” when discussing Omarosa, but accepted if not celebrated when Ivanka is referred to as a c*nt, or Melania as a whore?  Why do allegedly racist comments by some result in job loss, while similar comments by others are excused?  Why are certain comments removed from social media while other, nearly identical comments are not?   Why are threats to the children of the President, his staff, and his supporters not condemned as they would be if directed at anyone else?   Why are only some people intimidated both verbally and sometimes physically when they “speak” in the form of a hat or a shirt or a bumper sticker asserting a particular political position?  The answer to questions such as these is simply that it depends upon whether the speaker and the comments are pro or anti Trump and his administration.  The chilling effect that this has on free speech is frightening!
                                                                           ~
     Let’s all just try to be more precise, articulate, and fair in our support of and discussions about speech and freedom and the first amendment.

The Baby or the Bath Water?

There is a difference between protesting an act of a country and protesting the country itself.  It may be difficult to see or understand the distinction, but there is indeed a distinction, just as there is a difference between emptying or changing the bathwater and throwing out the baby that sits in it.

I can remember marching against the Vietnam War in the 1960s.  I, along with most of my fellow marchers, was marching as a proud American upset with my country’s involvement in Vietnam.  I was protesting that involvement, the decisions that led to it, and the decisions to remain involved.  I was not protesting the country itself.

Contrast many of the protests we see today that include signs and proclamations that “America was never great; we need to overthrow this system,” “Revolution,” and “This country cannot be reformed, it must be overthrown.”  These are one’s I can print here – others include far more violent sentiments against both the country and its leadership.  The specific issue allegedly being protested is often lost in the much louder rhetoric against the country itself.  Indeed, sometimes the actual point of the rally seems to be to protest the country; there is no focused issue being discussed.

Protesting an issue or an act is very specific.  It voices a position that something the country has or has not done should be rectified.  Such protests are a very real and necessary part of democracy.  They are one of many ways in which the people can speak, and protests over a specific issue have often been the catalyst that has caused our country to improve itself:  giving women the vote and the civil rights legislation ending segregation are just two examples of actions by the government that were preceded by specific protests about these issues.  Protests such as these led to reformation; they did not completely overthrow our system of government.  Rather, they made our country better.

And, here lies a key to one of the perhaps insurmountable problems in our country today.  Whereas, in the past we could debate issues while all sides unanimously believed in our country and our system of government, today we debate issues while some believe that the basic system can be reformed or improved and others truly believe we should just throw out the entire system.

In reality we are often not debating specific issues, but whether we should keep our system of government or completely throw it out and start over.  It is far more difficult to come to any resolution or compromise on that issue than it is to resolve or compromise on a specific point or action currently being taken or ignored within a system that all members of the debate agree is basically good.

Let’s consider a simple example.  If we have a garment that we agree is worthy of keeping but needs to be altered, we might argue about whether it is better to take in the side seams or the darts or the back seam, but, we would be in agreement that there is a problem that needs resolution.  We might even disagree about how much the garment needs to be taken in.  But we are not arguing that we need to replace the garment itself.  In such a case we will ultimately be able to resolve the issue and alter the garment, hopefully in a way that is satisfactory to all.  But, if we have a situation in which some believe the garment is basically good but must be altered while others believe there is no hope for the garment and it must be replaced, then we have a far bigger problem.

Today we have those who believe in America, in its system, a Democratic Republic with essentially a capitalist economic system.  Some believe that it is near perfect as is; others see areas that need improvement in various areas.  Those people could probably discuss and reach compromises on nearly all those issues.  But, today there is another group who do not believe in that system.  They do not see its possibility and its hope but rather find its promises to be empty or hopeless and therefore they see the solution to any imperfection as a complete rewrite of America itself.

So, there really is a divide between those who would simply throw out or change the bathwater and those who would toss the baby as well, refill the bath and replace the current baby with someone new.
This is a huge divide! 

If there is any hope of closing or crossing this divide (and I’m not sure that there is) we first must actually face it square on.  Keep or toss the baby?  Do we need a Solomon to help us decide?  We cannot split the baby in two (see my recent posts dated 8/10 and 8/13/18 on socialism and democracy and the incompatibility of the two).  This is far more than an issue about a specific act or inaction of our government.  This is an issue of our government itself and whether to retain our identity with all its flaws,  working to alter it so it fits us better, or whether to completely replace it with some other system.

A question such as that requires a far more informed debate than many are currently willing to have.  It requires an understanding of history and of various governmental systems.  It requires the ability to look beyond the immediate and consider both short term and long term consequences of any decisions.  It requires an understanding of freedom and individual rights and the type of freedom that America upholds versus what other countries may define as freedom. 

I am not really sure if those who currently assert that they would like to see a complete end to our democracy really mean that, or if they are simply screeching hyperbolic statements as a way of venting frustration at not having everything exactly as they want it.  I think there is some self-examination required in light of a full understanding of what replacing our country with something else would mean.

So, we have the bathtub and the baby.  Please consider the options before doing anything rash!

Capitalism Respects the Individual While Socialism Denies that Respect in Favor of the State

Dear Democrats,

I see that, for the first time, a Gallup poll has found that more Democrats prefer socialism than capitalism.  (See https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx)

Do you really understand that which you are preferring?

I suspect that everyone is at least somewhat familiar with the former U.S.S.R.  While we liked to refer to it as a communist country, it was indeed socialist.  Is that truly what you are looking for?  And, please don’t tell me that socialism here would be different – it would not.  The people who turned to socialism in the Soviet Union, like many of you, believed that it was for the good of all the people; history shows us how that turned out.

Let’s consider.  Here are the primary characteristics of a socialist economy:

1.      Public Ownership.   Also known as collective ownership, this means that the all forms of production and distribution are owned, controlled and regulated by the state (the government).  The basic motive of the government is not to profit, but rather to meet targeted objectives – objectives that those in power have determined are in some way appropriate.

2.      Planned Economy.  Again, the state will control and plan all economic activities including production, exchange, distribution, and consumption.  Laws of supply and demand do not apply.  The theory is that because the state is solely responsible for the distribution of wealth that society as a whole will prosper.

3.       Classless Society.  Everyone will theoretically have an equal economic status.

4.      State is responsible for basic necessities of life.  The basic needs of life are promised by the state.  These needs include:  food, shelter, clothing, health, education, employment.  The details of each of these needs are again left to the state to determine.

5.       Equal Opportunity.  While there may not be equality of income, the state will guarantee to provide equal opportunity by considering the skills and ability of each individual to determine their success in such a way as to deprive no one of their basic needs.

6.       Non-existence of competition and limited choice of consumer products.  Because the state has full control over production of goods and services there is an absence of competition in the market.  Because the system is focused on life necessities, choice in consumer products will be limited and confined to the essentials.

7.       Pricing Mechanism.  Pricing will be controlled by the state; this includes both market pricing and accounting pricing which underlies decisions about production of consumer and investment goods.

I can understand how this might sound good on first blush.  Words and phrases like “classless society” and “basic needs provided to all” along with a “planned economy” where “society as a whole will prosper”  all sound lovely.   How wonderful that everyone will be provided equally with food, shelter, clothing, health, education, and employment. 

Or, is it really so wonderful?

Let’s look at how those basic necessities were provided in socialist Russia.  I assume you are all aware of the bread lines and the meager existence of the Soviet citizenry.  Three generations of family living in a three room (that’s three total rooms, not three bedrooms) apartment.  Smaller unrelated families required to share living space.  Employment determined by the state.  Education primarily focused on indoctrination to the party ideals.  And, while everyone may have been provided those basic necessities, though in limited quantity and quality, one cannot really argue that the society was classless.  Those in power lived very differently from the masses.

I do think that the idea of socialism is in large part built on compassion.  One sees one’s fellow humans suffering and wanting for the basic necessities while others seem to have more than they could ever need.   One wants to help.  One wants to allow everyone to thrive.  But, consider whether, despite all its glowing rhetoric, socialism is really the best way.

In socialism, it is really the state that thrives.  The individual simply becomes a tool of that state, supporting it and those few that are in power.

Let’s consider how a capitalist economy differs. 

1.        Private Ownership.  Unlike socialism the means of production and distribution are primarily under private control.  Generally, there will be limited taxation and minimal government mandated labor policies as well as those designed to ensure employee safety and protect against unfair hiring practices.

2.       Free Market.  Individuals and businesses compete for profit.  The underlying principle is “survival of the fittest”; that is, those that offer the best products and services for the lowest prices while maintaining a high level of profitability will usually survive.  The free market follows the law of supply and demand and will be responsive to the needs and demands of consumers.

3.       Two classes.  Historically, capitalist economies are split between two classes of individuals:  the capitalist class that owns the means for production and distribution of goods, and the working class who sell their labor to the capitalist class in exchange for wages.

4.       Little or no government interference.  While an ideal capitalist economy would have no government interference, in reality there will be minimal laws and regulations on certain industries.  The government will not usurp the individuals‘ rights and abilities to make their own decisions as to what they need and what they want and as to how best to fulfill those needs and wants.

5.       Power of the individual.  The entire production pattern of capitalism is based on the desires, wishes and demands of the consumer.  Individuals are free to make their own choices as to how to use their skills and what to do with their profits.  Every individual is independent to his means of production in any occupation that one likes.  Self-interest rather than state interest will allow the individual to determine how and how hard to work, and will allow maximum income to be earned based on decisions and demands of individual consumers.

6.       Choice.  Producers and consumers are free to make decisions rather than having decisions made for them by the state.

7.       Willingness to change.  Capitalism has the ability to adapt and change.  The willingness to allow change and the adaptability of societies to improve inefficiencies within economic structures is important as societies evolve and is currently especially important in the area of technology.

Capitalism does not have so many pretty and compassionate sounding phrases as does socialism.  But, let’s go below the surface and consider that ultimately the difference is about the respect that one has for each person’s right to determine his or her own destiny.

In the end, socialism concludes that the individual is incapable of surviving, let alone deciding how to survive, without the state.  It sees the individual as a child who needs the state to act as parent, making all life decisions for the individual. It will feed and cloth the individual as it sees fit, not as the individual might like.  It will provide the care that it determines is appropriate.  It will decide how the individual should spend his or her life, both working and leisure life.  And, in order for the system to work, the state will demand complete loyalty from the individual.  Individual desires, hopes, dreams, aspirations become meaningless as all walk the path determined by the state.

In contrast, Capitalism respects the individual.  Yes, that can have some harsh consequences.  We all make bad decisions from time to time and, sadly, sometimes a bad decision may truly affect the rest of our life.  Sometimes we are placed in situations where we simply cannot make the decision that we would like.  Even in an ideal capitalism where everyone was faced with identical opportunities and abilities, the results of how each individual would handle those opportunities would differ, and ultimately  place some in less than desirable positions.  

Our very noble human compassion wants to stop the hurt that can come with a capitalist economy.  But, socialism is not the answer.  The answer is not to take away our individuality or to demean individuals as incapable of making decisions.  The answer is not to give the individuals’ power to the state.

The answer is to work to improve the existing imperfections of capitalism, not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water and dump capitalism for socialism. 

So, dear Democrats, I urge you to turn away from socialism’s seductive siren song.  Instead of being seduced by some power structure that would strip us all of our individual freedoms, listen to all the many individuals and their diverse needs and wants.  Help those individuals to see where changes in our society can strengthen our individual determination and responsibility to make a better world in which the individual, not the state, controls his or her own destiny.  Capitalism, not socialism, provides the democratic economic structure in which this can take place.