How Socialism Slithers In

While Socialism sometimes takes over a country by violence (e.g. the Russian revolution), at other times it is voted in (e.g. Spain in the 1930s and Venezuela upon the election of Hugo Chavez).  It is much harder to cause the end to Socialism without violence (e.g. Venezuela today) and sometimes the violence leads to something worse (e.g. Franco took power by overthrowing the socialist government that preceded him). 

This is one reason why it is important to be careful when we read statements that suggest where a politician’s policies will lead us.  Socialism sounds very enticing on the surface.  We all (I hope) know to be wary of promises that Socialism will give us all a living wage along with everything else we want, regardless of our desire or ability to work and contribute.  But the real enticements of socialism can be far subtler.

Take for example the following statement made by the Governor of New Mexico in support of creating an Early Childhood Care Department (NM Sen. Bill 22).   After stating that “a child’s early years of life are formative,” the Governor goes on to state that with the new department and with our “collective” responsibility, we can ensure that New Mexico children “will receive a continuum of care from birth to age 5 and enable the State to lay the groundwork for a successful future that encompasses our values as New Mexicans.” See Albuquerque Journal, 2/21/2019. LINK 

Now, on the surface this sounds lovely.  It sounds like the Governor cares about us and our children.  But, let’s reread and see what it really says.  It tells us that the State will take over the formative years of our children’s lives.  It tells us that the State would like to take control of our children from birth forward.  It tells us that the State feels it is more qualified than the family to “lay the groundwork” for the child’s future.  And, it tells us that the State, not the family should be the one to instill basic values in the child.  (It does not tell us what those values will be!).

To me, the thinking behind the lovely statement seems far too much like Socialism or Communism.  The State will raise the children and teach them how and what to think so that they will be useful cogs in the State machine.  It will replace the love and guidance that parents provide in a child’s formative years with State sponsored indoctrination.  Is this what people really want?

Example number two comes from a mandatory directive from an appointed head of a state agency to the employees within that agency.  The directive is addressed to “Family.”  Now, I don’t know about you, but I use the word “family” to address my actual family (parents, siblings, in laws, cousins, etc.).  When I address correspondence to those with whom I work I address them as “colleagues” or “co-workers” or perhaps in an appropriate instance as “friends.”  They are not my family (nor is the State - at least not yet).

But, more importantly, this directive asks employees to share their thoughts about their work environment in a way that would help to bring more employees into state government.   The request does not provide for anonymous answers (that would have been easy enough to do by setting up a Survey Monkey or anonymous Google share or other similar means).  Without such opportunity for anonymous reflections on less than positive aspects of the job there is no real interest in learning what the employee actually thinks or in understanding ways that the working environment might be improved.  Rather, it provides only one avenue:  to praise the State as employer.  And, it asks the employees to spend work time on this, rather than doing the actual work that the taxpayers are paying them to do.

And yet there is more.  The mandatory request concludes by stating that the sender wants to know “what you think/feel/believe and why.” What sounds, perhaps on the surface as a department head having some interest in supervised employees goes far beyond that.  It seeks to delve into their private and personal beings.  Only a State that has some interest in directing every behavior of individuals in a way that likely removes their individuality would demand to know what every employee believes and why.

These are just two examples of the sort of subtle maneuvering that causes people to support socialist-like agenda without even realizing they are doing so.  They add up.  And before one realizes it they are supporting and voting for a full Socialist agenda. 

I titled this post “How Socialism Slithers In.”  The use of the word slither was an intentional reference to a snake.  Whether you read it as fictional, as a Biblical fact, or as something else, the story of Adam and Eve and the Snake clearly presents evil disguised as offeror of a lovely option (in the form of beautiful fruit) which, if taken, has devastating consequences.  Socialism does the same: it offers what sounds like a lovely utopia, but it always has devastating consequences. 

The Socialism Snake beckons to us more and more zealously these days.  It is subtle and quiet as it slithers into our lives.  We need to be vigilant and see the snake for what it is.   The utopia it offers is nothing more than smoke and mirrors hiding a life without freedom and likely filled with misery.

Stupidity Is an Equal Opportunity Affliction

It affects people on both sides of the political aisle.

I really don’t know if it is stupidity or just a failure to think or the effect of being brainwashed so that one’s responses to every other person and every situation is pre-programed for them.  Regardless of what we call it, it is frightening.

I am no fan of socialists, or of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but, assuming for the sake of argument that she is not terribly bright or is not taking time to think before opening her mouth, she is not the only one.  Some of her opponents on the other side of the political spectrum are just as negligent when it comes to using their brains.

Here is what brought this to mind.  Recently on Facebook someone shared an article with the headline, “Ocasio-Cortez announces bill to make electoral college tuition free.”  Now, the source was stated as “Genesius Times” and if anyone would have bothered to click on the information icon on the posing they would have seen that this is a satirical fake news web site.  Beyond that, even those who are of the opinion that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is pretty dumb based on many of her (in the opinion of this author often quite idiotic) statements, even those who dislike AOC and all that she stands for would have to realize that based on some of her past statements she knows what the Electoral College is.

No matter.  The majority of commenters were willing to react without thinking, because that is the default reaction that they have for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist.  The majority of comments appeared to come from people who are clearly anti-socialist.  The majority of comments suggested that this headline was proof of AOC’s continuing dumbness.   That is their default position and everything they look at will prove it without need for thought.

The irony is that in simply accepting the headline as a true statement when so much pointed to its falsity, they proved their own dumbness, at least in this instance.  They did not think.  Moreover, some of the comments revealed that the commenter did not even take time to think or learn what the Electoral College is as they argued against free tuition for all, or that it should give out tuition based on merit, etc. This is not that different from jumping to conclusions against the Right in the recent Smollett case, something that these same anti-AOC commenters probably condemned as reprehensible.

Yes, there is stupidity on all sides of the aisle, it abounds everywhere and in every aspect of our lives today, and that is how we end up with the government that we have.  These same people who can’t take one second to think, who just respond with a knee-jerk and prefabricated condemnation of someone who holds a different perspective – these are the same people who go to the polls and elect those who create our laws and govern us.  Frightening isn’t it?!

We seem to be living in a No-Think era.  I don’t really believe that people are as dumb as much behavior makes them seem.  What I do believe is that we are not teaching children to think, that we are not ourselves taking the time to think and that we are simply accepting conclusions that may or may not have any reasonable basis in fact.  This is dangerous.  This is how people become susceptible to a dictatorship.  This is how people lose their freedom and their individuality. 

Those of us who care about this can demand more of ourselves and of others.  We can ask questions about assertions that we and others make.  We can think before we speak and certainly before we act.  We can choose not to accept or reject statements just because of who made them (or whom they are about), but instead examine their substance and make our own evaluations and conclusions based on that substance, rather than on the conclusion that we have been told to reach based on whatever group we happen to affiliate with.

This is basic critical thinking, something we seem to have forgotten.  We need to resurrect it and move from this no-think era to one in which we use our brains to guide our behavior; where we listen and think before we act, where we are less self-righteous and more open to hearing what is actually being said, and where we take time to consider each individual person and situation rather than judge based on generic and identity characterizations. 

Yes, we are all susceptible to the affliction of stupidity, but we also all have the built in antidote.  It is called our brain.  It’s time we all used it.

Defining Issues - Thinking

How can we have discussions about important issues – issues that have more than one possible solution – if we can’t even define what those issues are?

This is really a question related to logic, and the reason it is a problem is in large part because a vast majority of people today seem to want to make decisions based, if not solely, at least primarily on emotion and not on clear thought.

For example, recently after the President’s speech announcing his intent to declare a border emergency, a local TV station posed this question to its listeners:  “Do you want a border wall?" Now, that question can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” though such answer would not address the depth of the situation or the answerer's support and reasoning for the answer.  But it clearly asks the recipients of the question to state their position on the wall.  Not on the emergency declaration.  Not on how they feel about immigrants themselves.  Not on what they think of President Trump.  Not on how many Democrats previously have made statements in support of the wall.  Not on what a physical barrier should be called.  Not on whether those who enter the country illegally should be treated differently from those who enter legally.  Etc.  Yet the answers given were often to one or more of these other questions, rather than to the question asked.   If a discussion had ensued between those answering, the participants would have been discussing different issues; like a tower of babel there would be no real understanding and hence no real resolution of any of the issues that individuals thought they were discussing.

All of the above are relevant to the broader immigration debate, but if we are ever going to have such a debate, we must clearly identify the pieces and their corresponding question that go into that debate and are parts that must be resolved before the larger, overall question can be resolved.  We cannot have a discussion where one participant thinks they are discussing one point while another thinks they are discussing a very different point.

Staying within the same general area of immigration and the wall, but with a different focus, people may wish to debate the President's emergency declaration.  But if they wish to have a productive discussion they must understand precisely what they are discussing.  Is it about the 1976 National Emergency Act itself?  Is the question a comparison of this declaration with previous declarations including the 31 still in effect? Is it about the 1982 statute that gives the President a number of emergency powers including the power to authorize and construct military construction projects using any existing defense appropriations for such military constructions?  Is it whether Congress should revise this statute and if so, could that retroactively affect the President's powers under a current declaration?  Is it whether it is a “military construction project” to build a structure that defines at least parts of a country’s border so as to at least in part prevent illegal entry into that country? 

And, within the broad topic of immigration, underlying all questions about the wall and border crisis are the bigger policy questions of whether or not to have open borders and if borders are to be controlled what is the best way to do so and what requirements and restrictions should be placed on those wishing to enter the country.  Answers to those broader questions direct answers to more specific questions and so must be defined and debated as their own issues.

Complex issues have many complex sub-parts.  This is not only true for immigration.  It is true for any question that has more than one possible answer or solution and about which people wish to discuss and debate those possible resolutions.  Before the broad and bottom line question can be resolved, its many sub-parts must be addressed and resolved.  To do that, people must be informed about and understand the facts, laws, and other relevant information about each piece.

And, there is the problem!   When people make decisions emotionally or based on prefabricated conclusions, there is no need to consider facts.  There is no need to be fully informed or to use the mind to consider the many significances of varying interpretations of facts and the many possible consequences of varying ways of addressing those facts.  It is much easier just to react with a sound-bite and conclusory stance on an issue.

Here are some recent examples.  

     It feels good to say we will let everyone come on in to America, that we are thus caring about humanity.  Hence, one takes a stand against a wall or for open borders or against an emergency declaration without full consideration of the relevant facts or the likely real world current and future consequences of those positions.

     It feels good and conforms with the progressive script to say Amazon like all big corporations is evil, so kick it out of your town without any consideration of the people who might have found a good income from new jobs created (never mind a total misunderstanding like that of Ocasio-Cortez of the fact that a tax break is not money in hand that can be handed out to people  - see Meet the Press interview with DeBlasio in which he explains that Amazon would have brought in 27 billion in jobs and revenue and out of that Amazon would have received a 3 billion tax break, but that none of that money currently exists, contrary to AOC’s assertion that the city already had and has 3 billion to give away HERE ). 

     It feels good to say Trump should be removed from office, so never mind the fact that the 25^th amendment is not the way to go about it (Constitutional Law Scholar Alan Dershowitz has repeatedly explained that invoking the 25th Amendment to remove would be a fundamental misuse of its original purpose.   See HERE ).

     It feels good to denounce Trump supporters as racist and homophobic, so don’t wait for facts before attacking them and blaming Trump for an alleged attack on Jussie Smollett.  Then follow Pelosi’s example of quietly deleting your tweets and statements once the allegation becomes questionable.  (see more generally this blog dated January 23 “Quietly Delete”  HERE )

     And, more broadly, it feels good to denounce Trump and his supporters without actual consideration of their actions, of the President’s actual accomplishments, the facts on things like unemployment, the economy, foreign relations.  It is simply enough to not like the President’s looks or demeanor, or to simply accept assertions and conclusory sound-bites of anti-Trump media and Democrats without individual thought and objective consideration of evidence.

When we react to problems with emotion, based on a preconceived and generic conclusions, we don’t think.  And when we don’t think about such things as understanding all the evidence and all the consequences of various courses of action, then we end up making poor decisions often with unforeseen and negative consequences.

Our form of government, a Democratic Republic, requires people to be informed and to use their minds to critically consider options and courses of action.  It does not demand that emotions be excluded from consideration, but emotions are simply one facet of a problem which should be considered objectively with all other evidence as one uses one’s mind to think about and fully understand an issue.  We cannot react to and make decisions about important policies based simply on a gut reaction or by mere acceptance of someone else’s conclusion without our own examination of relevant facts.

This of course takes work.  Our form of government takes work.  It is easy to have a simple democracy of mob rule where the voice (and rights) of the minority and the individual can be silenced; it is easy to have a dictatorship where one is simply told what to think; but our form of government recognizes, appreciates, and protects the individual. (For more on forms of government see this blog dated 8/10/18 Here)  

Our Democratic Republic assumes that the individual will be a responsible member of the community who will do the work necessary to be fully informed and will do the mental work necessary to understand that information.  Only then can one understand the many facets of an issue and have a productive discussion with others about that issue and how best to resolve it.  In order to continue to enjoy the freedoms and protections of our form of government, we must all do this work.

We, today, are faced with many complex issues.  We can continue to address them with emotional anger and reaction, or we can do our job as citizens of this Democratic Republic and become informed about the many complexities of important issues and discuss those complexities with rational thought and understanding.  By doing the latter we increase our odds of arriving at solutions whose consequences are positive both today and in the future.  

The Elitism of Historical Enlightenment

There are those today who would judge every historical event by today’s standards. This is an unfortunate form of elitism.

Societies, including ours, evolve.  As they evolve they gain both scientific and social understanding that may prove that previous beliefs or actions were incorrect.  People once thought the world was flat or that the sun and stars moved around the earth.  Science later proved these beliefs to be wrong.  Yet we do not judge as stupid those who appropriately held those beliefs at the time they were considered to be accurate views of the physical world.

Similarly, as we evolve sociologically we learn that some of the beliefs that we had about the capabilities of women or other cultures or races were incorrect.  As we evolve sociologically we learn to be sensitive to diverse views and cultures.  We learn that behaviors that once were accepted actually were cruel or hurtful to others.  Yet, that behavior was at one time accepted as valid, justifiable, and expected. 

Just as it is not fair to judge the ancestor who believed the earth to be flat, it is not fair to condemn historical social behavior based on today’s sociological and moral understandings. To do so is a form of elitism – the attitude that those doing the condemning are somehow morally superior.  It is a form of snobbery which, in the case of historical enlightenment, is unjust.

With that in mind, let us consider the yearbook photo on Gov. Ralph Northam’s yearbook page that he initially admitted but now claims is not of him.  The photo shows a person in blackface standing with a person dressed as a member of the KKK.  The yearbook is from 1984.  That is 35 years ago.

By today’s standards the photo is at a minimum culturally insensitive, and by most standards is racist and perhaps worse.   By today’s standards the behavior and the photo are unacceptable.  But, what were the standards in 1984?  As I recall that time it was not uncommon to hear comedians recite jokes that made fun of and caricatured races and cultures.  I don’t know what time of year the photo was taken, but I can assure you that if this were perhaps Halloween, few would raise their eyebrows at such costumes.  Indeed, Halloween was a time of all sorts of culturally offensive costuming, most of which has now been banned as we as a culture come to realize how offensive cultural appropriation and cultural humor can be.

I would like to think that Gov. Northam, in either wearing one of the costumes or in simply choosing to put the photo in his yearbook felt some sort of discomfort about his choice.  But I would also not be surprised if he did not, given the different atmosphere and racial understanding or lack thereof that prevailed 35 years ago.  

I cringe when I see this photo.  And if Gov. Northam put it before our eyes today, I would be the first to call for his resignation.  But to condemn him for an act that was in all likelihood not worthy of condemnation 35 years ago and also likely not done with malice in the atmosphere of 1984 seems to me to be unjust and an act of elitist superiority based on some sort of historical enlightenment.

Such elitism can be very dangerous.  If we are only going to live by the values of today, then I expect that we all are candidates for condemnation based on our acts of the past.  And, as history and cultures move forward, those elitist moral police of today may very likely be subjects of condemnation tomorrow.

It would be nice to think that we would all be prescient enough to understand the science and the sociological mores of the future.  The historical enlightenment elitists apparently expect us to have that capability and hence to have every statement and every action of today live up to what we will know and believe years into the future.

That is simply ridiculous.  Let us expect people to acknowledge the things they have done in the past that may have been accepted then but now are unacceptable.  Let us learn from those past actions.  Let people not do those things today, or, if they do, let them suffer the appropriate consequences.  But let us not condemn them for doing or saying things that were not considered unacceptable at the time they were done.

And let us not use this elitism of this moment in time to score political points.  Gov. Northam currently supports policies, including those on abortion, that are strongly opposed by others.  It is easy for the opposition to use this 35 year old event to call for his resignation.  Personally, because of some of his current policies I would be happy to see him gone.  But, I will not call for his resignation because of this 35 year old photo. 

And, on the other side of the aisle, there are those who generally support the Governor’s policies but are now calling for his resignation because of the photo.  I can’t help but wonder if this is simply their own self-promotion – a way to show their supporters that they, by condemning this action regardless of when it occurred, makes them somehow morally superior. 

While the current news story of Gov. Northam’s yearbook photo has been my example here, this is not an attempt to defend the Governor.  Rather, he is simply my example of the way in which many currently judge history by today’s standards, without context or any attempt to understand the context of historical times.  Perhaps this should not be surprising as so many in our society seem to want to live only in the moment, to erase, ignore or deny history. 

But that snobbery, that belief that now we know everything and are justified in condemning everything and everyone who is not us today is a very dangerous approach.  We are our history.  To condemn everything that is not us today is to condemn our very selves and to set the precedent that tomorrow’s selves can condemn, destroy, and deny all that we are today.  We become a people with no past and no future, just a hopeless and fleetingly elitist present.