November’s Real Choice

The line is now clearly drawn.  Progressive socialism or Conservative capitalism.  The contrast is stark and those with clear opinions do not understand how anyone could take the other side.  But they do and they will.   This is not an election to sit out; it is not an election to vote for a third party.  This election will indeed determine the future of America.   And, sadly, this election places your choice as one of two extremes.  But you must choose one. 

I, like most Americans, would prefer to have a choice somewhere in the middle.  But we do not.  And the choice that the people of America make this November will truly decide the irreversible direction that this country will take. 

While the most extreme desires and promises of both sides will likely not take effect in the near future, they do give one a sense of what aspects of America each side values.  And there are, indeed, some rational arguments for both sides.  But everyone must stop and think what about America they hold dear and how they envision the America, with whatever natural improvements and evolution, that they would like to perpetuate for future generations of Americans. 

This is not an election about specific candidates and their personalities, though both parties would like to make it so.  Put the individual candidates aside and look at the differences and the goals and ideals of Progressive socialism vs Conservative capitalism.  Look at the realities of each (we have some of both in our current America as well as clear examples elsewhere in the world).  In which sort of country and society do you want to live?  In which will your day-to-day life and that of those you love be most comfortable?  Do you prefer groupthink and conformity or are you more comfortable with individual acknowledgement and responsibilities? Those are the sorts of questions you should be asking yourself.  Not whether the individual personalities of Harris/Walz or Trump/ Vance impress you more. 

Those individual candidates are merely place holders for the choice that we voters are really making this coming November.  We are truly deciding the future of this country, for America is definitely going to change in the coming years.  The real question we are deciding is do we want to keep our core principles (Constitution, form of government, rule of law) and improve upon what we already have, or do we want to give up on those traditional institutions and essentially rewrite America in the socialist mode? 

That question is not something to be answered lightly, without thought, or based on traditional party affinities.  This is the time to stand up as an American, think about what that means, and vote for the country that you love.  And, in order to do that, you must base your decision on the truth, not the political propaganda and the distorted “news” presentations that bombard every one of us 24/7.    

Each and every one of us has a brain, and while it seems we are inclined more often than not to let others think for us, in this election we must use those brains and think for ourselves.  Then, armed with true knowledge and understanding of what we are really voting for along with what we may be giving up and the stark contrast between the two possible choices, we must all show up at the polls and vote.  America needs we the people, and we must show her that we understand and care.

TWO STORIES

 I was probably around 11 years old the first time I went to a birthday party where I received a prize without winning any of the games.  This was a new experience for someone in the late 1950s/early 1960s.  It was the first time everyone got a prize whether they did anything or not.  On the way home with my mother I tried to explain that the prize I had received was not because I had won, but just something for taking part in the game.  She didn’t understand. I remember my overwhelming emotion was one of shame for getting something for nothing.

Recently I heard a successful minority artist being interviewed on the radio.  The interviewer kept stressing the fact that he had worked several jobs during his time at college in order to pay his tuition.  My thinking was “so what – a lot of people I know as well as my own self did the same, some were minorities, some were not.  All were both thankful for and proud of their work and what it had allowed them to accomplish.”   But the interviewer, and to some extent the artist himself, seemed to stress the victim factor of having to work to attend college.  This was such a contrast to the view that such work to improve oneself and/or achieve a goal is something to be proud of.  It does not make someone a victim, but rather a success.

What do these two stories have in common and what do they tell us about society both in years past and today?

To what is one entitled?

Both stories consider a relationship between some personal effort and a reward.  The first story reflects a principle that one does not get something for nothing – one must “win” it by their own hard work.

The second story reflects the idea that if you have to work for something then you are experiencing some sort of victimhood/disentitlement and that the focus of your eventual success should be on the victim experience rather than the personal initiative that led to your success or even the ultimate success itself.

If we consider that these two core principles reflect a more general societal view far beyond the specifics of each story, then one has to wonder: 1) how has such a core value changed so greatly in little over 50 years; and (2) is the change a good one?

A change in message

It was in the 1960s that our society began to seriously question competition, especially for children.  We began to be concerned that hurt feelings of losing were unhealthy and must be eliminated.  Hence the emergence of the “participation trophy” for everyone.

The hidden message of such “trophies” is that really all one has to do is show up.  No effort required beyond mere presence.  A second message is that one has a right to always feel good – no hurt feelings due to losing a competition or otherwise.

The “entitlement” to always feeling good broadened beyond childhood games.  Parents hesitated to say “no” to children for fear of hurt feelings.  Grade inflation was in part motivated by a similar goal.  “Safe spaces” began to appear on college campuses and in the workplace as the children who learned that they had a right to demand happiness grew up and became adults.

This change in attitude continued to explode.  Not only were you entitled to never have a hurt feeling – everyone was entitled to have it all.  Personal choices that may have led to a negative personal consequence became no longer relevant as well as personal characteristics and talents that make each of us the individual we are.  Scientific advances helped in this regard, doing such things as outfitting physically limited bodies with artificial replacements.  Yes, people began to believe that they can and that they are entitled to any and everything they want, including the current idea that they can change their sex at will and that men can be pregnant and give birth to a child.  Questioning any personal desire or gratification is met with an accusation of insensitivity if not bigotry.

Is the new message a good one?

A message of entitlement growing out of a desire to protect from pain at first may sound harmless or perhaps even laudable, but once one reflects on it one can see the broad and changeful effect that it can have. 

It creates a major change in societal values.  Where personal responsibility and pride in one’s work were once lauded, now the responsibility falls upon society as a whole to create a happy environment for all.  (We will save for another time how and who defines “happiness” for all the people.)  A recent television ad advertising a free housing program announced that people should have time to play and do what they want rather than have to work hard to pay for housing; the visuals showed happy individuals riding bikes, playing in parks, etc.

For many today, the concept of “equity” for all as opposed to “equality of opportunity” has become paramount.  If one will have the same result regardless of how much or little effort one puts in, the work ethic becomes meaningless and with it pride in one’s work becomes an archaic concept.

A path to Socialism

With the loss of those concepts a path is cleared toward socialism.  This country has been testing that path for some time, and now it seems that a good half of the country would choose Socialism over Capitalism.

Both systems can be enticing, and neither is perfect.  I will be the first to admit that in America today it is much harder to achieve one’s dreams simply through one’s own hard work and that the promise of utopia that Socialism presents (though ultimately never delivers) sounds lovely.  But at the same time I believe that to give up that individual fulfillment that comes from the sometimes difficult burdens of personal responsibility and hard work would be a hugely wrong step for our society. 

If you only had fun, do you really win?

It is only through the struggles that one faces when allowed to experience hardships and sadness that one can feel the true joys of success.  And it is often those hard times that provide one with the motivation to strive to become truly the best they can be and not just one of the many swimming in the mediocre sea of equity. 

Nowadays of course, everyone expects to get the prize/trophy/reward whether they worked for it or not.  If not provided, they become victims with a claim for an even bigger and better prize.  I think our society was in a better place in the first story - when one felt a bit ashamed of getting something for nothing.

 

Is Capitalism the Real Problem?

I think it is a given that our country is clearly split almost exactly in two over how we want to move forward.  But, forward from what?  That is a question that we seem to have skipped examining.

Many argue that we must give up on capitalism because it is a total failure.  But is it? 

While I think most would agree that the mobility both up and down the economic scale that is the promise of capitalism for all has become far less a reality in this country than it once was, I think that we ignore asking and answering why that is or whether it can be corrected.  Instead about half the country would just dump our capitalist system completely and “move forward.”

Let’s just briefly remind ourselves what capitalism is. Capitalism is an economic system where individuals and firms have considerable freedom to decide what to produce and how to produce. It is an economy dominated by free markets, private property and limited government regulation.

In our capitalist democratic republic, which does not have official caste or class systems that prevent upward mobility, true capitalism allows individuals, based on their talents, individual motivations, and a bit of luck to move both up and down.  That mobility includes an amount of risk and uncertainty, but it also includes the hope and promise of a better life for all.

Critics of capitalism will assert that capitalism ignores peoples' needs, results in wealth inequality, and does not promote equal opportunity. They argue that capitalism also encourages mass consumption, is unsustainable, and provides an incentive for business owners to harm the environment or cause other external harm for monetary gain.

These are to some extent legitimate criticisms.  Capitalism will never result in everyone being in the same position – the equity that is all the rage on the Left these days.  Let’s remind ourselves, however, that equity is not equality; to achieve equity requires taking away equality from those individuals who are in a position that is considered superior.  Equity, along with its colleague “fairness,” actually requires a lack of fairness – a lack of equal treatment – to achieve certain state mandated results.  Demanding equity belies one of our core values that all people are created equal and deserve equal treatment. 

Instead of equity, ideally capitalism provides everyone with the opportunity to use their own skills and desires to get to where they want to be.  That is the ideal and, like any ideal, it will never be achieved.  And, at times, even when the opportunities are entirely equal,  the outcomes may appear or actually be unfair. 

But capitalism creates possibilities, the taking of which vary in risk-factor as well as perhaps the need for luck.  It does not guarantee that any particular actions or inactions will or will not result in a particular end.  And, when results are not guaranteed, there is uncertainty.  Uncertainty is often uncomfortable.

Today it does seem that too many individuals are not finding the desired and sometimes even necessary results.  One cannot ignore that we have far too many people with food or home insecurity despite working two and three jobs.  But the reaction to this seems to be the singular:  Capitalism doesn’t work, dump it and move to a different system with socialism being that system of choice.

I ask that we step back.  Let us ask why is it that capitalism is not working.  Is it truly a failed system, or is it just flawed in its current practice?  What does capitalism need to succeed and is that the environment of our capitalism today?  Is it the fault of capitalism or is it the fact that we actually now have a significant number of socialistic regulations and programs interwoven with our capitalism?  I suggest these are things worth examining before simply perhaps throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Let’s look at our first major socialist program – social security.  We have all become dependent on it, we expect to receive it when we retire.  It is a clear piece of certainty (security) in our otherwise uncertain lives.  And it is a socialistic government (social) program that is paid for by the taxes of others.  Overall, it is probably a decent program successfully providing everyone who worked at least a minimal income upon retirement. 

But imagine if instead of government collecting the social security tax from your paycheck each month you had that money to yourself determine how to spend.  You could develop your own retirement plan that might net you far better retirement income.   But that does not have the certainty that social security does.  You might just as easily spend that money on frivolities and have nothing for retirement.  You might make a risky investment and end up with far less.  So, to make sure that everyone has something, we give up our personal freedom and decision-making and allow the government to provide us the secure and certain amount that it determines is appropriate for us.

Government regulations which become more and more inclusive have a huge effect on the free market and hence on the capitalist system.  Remember, capitalism needs limited government intervention to thrive.  When the government, its taxes and regulations, encourages businesses and their jobs to go overseas, when excessively high minimum wages force small businesses to collapse, when government programs deflate individual initiative and encourage a hopelessness of existence dependent upon government help, then it becomes very difficult for capitalism to survive. 

When, due to big government, individuals relinquish their belief in the mobility of capitalism and trade it for the certainty of position, no matter how less than or hopeless that certainty may be, then we really do not have a true capitalist system to evaluate or to throw out.

The more the government provides certainty, the more that we become less willing to take the risks of innovation and self-determination that capitalism requires.  We become accustomed to certainty – to security, to social security not just for retirement, but for life itself.  And when the government does not provide enough, we ask for (demand) more.  That is not really the way capitalism works and so perhaps we should not be blaming capitalism for the inequity that we see around us today.

So, rather than jump ahead to the solution of throwing out capitalism, I suggest that we pause and really examine why capitalism is not working particularly well currently.  Is it the fault of capitalism itself, or is it that it has been infused with too many socialist elements that are the direct antithesis of capitalism and which work to prevent the effectiveness of the capitalist system?  Is there something we can do to put capitalism back on track, or is the only possible solution to completely give it up? These are serious and crucial questions that need to be answered before deciding on the best path forward.

I think that many of the problems with our society are concerns to both sides of our warring populace.  The catch is that half of that populace has already made the decision to move forward with socialism without a full examination and understanding of what is actually causing the problems.

I believe we owe it to ourselves, our country, and our future generations to consider whether we can make corrections to our capitalist system that will address many of the problems with which we are faced.  I think it is at the very least worth a try.

Socialism on the other hand is usually a snake-oil cure.  If we are as a nation to decide to take the path of socialism I would like to see that decision made with a full understanding of what socialism really is and where it leads.  I do not think that many of those leading or following the charge away from capitalism and toward socialism have taken a complete and honest look at either the problems or their proposed solution.

Question 4 - Appearance or Substance? Talk or Action?

This is the 4^th in an intermittent series of questions to think about before casting your ballot in November.

Today I want to encourage everyone to really think about why they are voting for someone. 

Can you vote for someone you don’t like as a person if their policies benefit you and your country (or, can you vote for someone whose policies will likely hurt you/your country just because you like their personality/dislike the personality of their opponent?

This is a critical question this year.  First because the perceptions of the two men running for president differ at the superficial (likability) level.  Secondly, the reality of the actions that each will take as president are substantially different and would have significantly different consequences for this country and the individuals living within it.

I understand that many people do not like Donald Trump’s rough-hewn nature; they do not like his “tell it like it is” way of talking – no couching things in niceties, no euphemisms, no  politically correct terms, etc.  I also understand that many folks like Joe Biden’s “nice guy” image, his big smile, his ability to say what his audience likes to hear. 

I also know that some people object to Donald Trump, saying they cannot vote for him, because they claim to be offended by his “character flaws.”  I don’t believe this excuse because if one is going to be offended by the idea of character flaws  then they would certainly be equally offended by those of Joe Biden:  rape charges against him; verified unwanted touching and hair sniffing of innumerable women and young girls; verified use of his government position for personal and family gain; lying about when he met and began a relationship with his current wife; proven repeated acts of plagiarism to name just a few. 

So, what is it?  Many people say they want their president to act “presidential.”  But what does it really mean to be “presidential?”

We live in an age of appearances.  For many it seems to be all about playing the part, not about who you really are or what you really stand for.  Most of our presidents have been politicians before taking the office;  certainly that is true in the recent past.  Politicians have learned the rules of politi-speak, of how to sound like you are saying something when actually you say nothing, how to talk big but accomplish little.

Donald Trump entered this political world of appearances as an outsider.  He doesn’t fit the mold.  But does that mean that he is not presidential?

Personally, I am far more concerned with actions and accomplishments than with whether someone fits the mold of the stereotypical politician.   What someone does will tell me much more about both the individual’s character as well as what sort of a president he or she might be.  So, with that in mind, let’s look at some of the actions and accomplishments of likeable Joe and rough-hewn Trump.

● Prison Reform:  Biden talked about the need for it for 40+ years, but despite his political influence as senator and vice-president, nothing was done.  Trump got it done – maybe not everything that everyone would like, but a huge step forward.

● Veterans and the VA:  Biden talked about it, Trump got it done.

● Poor economic status and joblessness of minorities:  Biden talked about it, but it was Trump who raised the unemployment status of Blacks and other minorities to the lowest ever in the nation’s history while providing a positive job climate that raised minority economic status to heights not seen before.  While Biden continues to say he will do something, Trump says he will continue to act as he has, continuing to improve the situation.

● Peace in the Middle East:  Biden may have talked about it, Trump just negotiated an historic peace accord between Arab nations and Israel.

● Trade:  Trade deals, including those supported by Biden, were hurting our small businesses, our farmers, and Americans generally.  Trump renegotiated trade deals that are favorable to the U.S.

● Foreign policy:  Biden as part of the Obama administration spoke from a position of apology and weakness whereas Trump speaks from a position of strength.  Trump is fully funding our military and is actually ending the years of foreign wars and bringing our troops home.  He also opened relations with North Korea and likely averted nuclear conflict there.  Meanwhile, Joe Biden was and is using foreign relationships for his own and his family’s personal and financial gain.

● Middle East:  Biden opposed the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden.  Trump sent successful missions against Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Qasem Soleimani.  The Trump administration has effectively eliminated ISIS.  

● American Embassy in Israel:  Biden talked about moving it to the capital, Jerusalem.  Trump actually moved the embassy to Jerusalem, leading the way for some other nations to do the same.

● Health care:  Biden of course was part of the Obama-Biden healthcare plan that resulted in Obamacare.  The mandates (taxes) under that plan were untenable for many.  Penalties required those who did not want insurance to pay anyway, often outrageous amounts for insurance they did not want or need.  People lost the ability to choose or keep their doctors (despite promises to the contrary).   Biden has said he favors national healthcare and has also said he doesn’t, but it seems clear that he is likely to support at a minimum an Obamacare type plan, a plan administered by government bureaucracy.  President Trump has managed to remove some of the most burdensome parts of Obamacare and expand options and quality of affordable healthcare.  He indicates a desire to do more to provide more affordable choice to Americans.

● Prescription Drugs:  Biden talked about problems of cost and availability.  Trump has reduced the cost of prescription drugs, made them more available, and has given terminal patients the Right to Try Act.

● Immigration:  Obama-Biden actually did put kids in cages but did not even-handedly enforce immigration laws.  Trump enforces the laws on the books (his duty as president), is clear about the distinctions between legal and illegal immigration, has taken many actions (including the wall) to reduce illegal border activity such as child and drug trafficking, and is working to improve access to immigration based on merit.

● Black colleges:  Biden talks about the importance of Black education.  Trump restored funding to Black colleges. 

● Race relations:  Biden believes in identity politics and their divisive effect.   Like many on the Left he likes to make promises and even throw money at minorities, but he rarely shows respect for them as individuals.  Trump’s policies do not pick winner and loser identity groups; instead they equally apply to all Americans. 

This list could go on and on.   I suspect that since the media is more concerned with providing superficial pictures of a likable Biden and an unlikable Trump that some of the above may come as a surprise. 

There are indeed many more that suggest how busy our President is and how much he has gotten done for this country and its people in just 3 ½ years.  His actions have angered some, but, not being a typical politician, he is not in it to be liked, he does not play political games, he just gets things done.  He has kept just about all of his campaign promises. 

Beyond actions, the policies supported by each candidate and his party are important and, in this election year, if not polar opposites, they certainly reflect vastly different views of this country and what it will become.

President Trump’s actions suggest that he believes in the capitalist system, he believes in America and its Constitution, and is generally a conservative.  He supports policies that provide equal opportunity to all Americans, he believes in individual responsibility and choice, he is pro-life, he believes in small government and follows the Constitutional limits on the federal government respecting the rights of the states and their governors to make decisions about such things as using the national guard to quell riots or mandating masks. 

Joe Biden’s actions in the past have suggested that he believes in big government and is willing to accept significant government control over the lives of the populace.  He believes less in individual responsibility and choice and more in government regulation and direction over individual lives.  Like many on the Left he believes that he knows what is good for you and that you should simply leave it up to government to both provide for you and decide what you should say, believe, and think. 

If not a socialist, many of Biden’s handlers are.  There is little doubt that what he now has referred to as the Harris administration will heavily lean socialist.

In a capitalist democratic republic, one is free to make their own choices and to become the person they were meant to be.  In a socialist world, the government makes the choices and the individual will only become the person that they are allowed to be.  It is a significant difference.

So, back to today’s question.  It is unlikely that you are ever going to actually meet Joe Biden or Donald Trump, let alone sit down with them as friends.  So why does it matter whether you like one or dislike one as a person?  Shouldn’t it be more important to look at the actions of each, not what they say or how they charm you?  Wouldn’t it be better to make your choice based on the America that each foresees for your future? 

Joe Biden is a charming talker.   But in 40 plus years of public service he has done little to better the life of Americans or to further the stature of America itself. 

Donald Trump does what he says he is going to do.  In the process he may not be the likable charmer that most politicians are.  But he is direct and honest, whether you like what he says or how he says it.  And his actions in the short time he has been in office have done enormous good for the country and its people. 

As I have said previously, I am not registered with any party, but as an independent thinker and voter I truly believe that this may be one of the most important elections of our lifetime.  So, for me it is about substance, not superficial appearance when I consider what makes someone “presidential.”  

Superficial Appearance or Substance.  While for many Joe Biden may win the superficiality contest, when I look at the substance the scale tips heavily in favor of President Trump.  He has my vote for another 4 years.

 

Happy New Year! What is Your Mission?

Happy New Year!

I am hoping for a new year in which everyone (including myself) becomes a bit more tolerant and that we are able to be thankful for what we each have and take joy simply in living without forever taking issue with those who have more, less, or are simply different in mind, body, or spirit than we are.

But, then, I read the morning news and learned that the Left has declared this the “year of resistance.”  (One wonders what the last 3 years have been?!)  The Left have vowed to double their efforts to remove President Trump from office, whether by the electoral process or by other means, they don’t really seem to care.

This caused me to again reflect upon what is “the Left” and why are they always so discontented and hateful?  We must begin with the understanding that, even though they both inhabit the Democrat Party, Leftists are not Liberals and that Leftism is not Liberalism.

While we often use the two terms interchangeably or think of Left as simply more extreme Liberalism, the reality is that the two have very different world views and each’s ideal includes very different Americas. 

Liberals essentially believe in American Democracy and Capitalism but understand its imperfections and would make changes to improve but not fundamentally change them.  Liberals would like to see more income equality, more affordable housing, better and more affordable health care, less discrimination, etc., but they would create these things within the capitalist structure of this country.  Their disagreements with the Right are more often on how to achieve these things within our governmental structure rather than with the governmental structure itself.   

The Right also has a number of conservative factions including fiscal, Christian, traditionalist, libertarian, moderate, as well as some extremists; but, for the most part the Right or Republicans all support the American capitalist form of government.   As such, when the two parties consisted mostly of conservatives and liberals, it was easier for the government to accomplish necessary changes as the two sides could more easily work toward successful compromises within the same fundamental government structure and ideals.

In contrast, the Left considers capitalism as something that should be done away with.  While they would like to see many results similar to those advocated by Liberals, their method of achieving those goals is to fundamentally change the governing structure of America.  While Liberals might want to see governmental structures change more quickly, the Left would like to see them change completely.  Ultimately, in their desire to create what they would see as a better incarnation, the Left would destroy everything that makes America what it is today. 

Hence the Left’s hatred of Trump, patriotism, and nationalism.  A note here:  nationalism is simply a support for one’s own nation.  While that nationalism can take a dark turn it is not in and of itself an evil; indeed, it is something that is necessary for the health and sustenance of any country or nation-state.  Similarly, patriotism is nothing more than support for one’s country along with a feeling of attachment to that country.  These are not negative things, but they become negative to a group that would completely destroy that country and rebuild it with something else.  This is what the Left would do.

The Left would completely restructure our economy, and in doing so would also completely restructure our democracy.  They cannot follow the Liberal approach of compromise or have patience for the slower path of change that occurs within our current systems because the Left does not believe in that system.  The Left wants not only immediate change but also change to a completely different system.  Their entire ideology is different.

The Left rejects the core ideologies of this country.  For example, Leftism is based on class solidarity, not national solidarity and not human solidarity.  The class – the identity group – is essential to a Left philosophy.  While America believes that the color of one’s skin should be insignificant (and despite history that contradicted that, our country has and continues to allow us to move past inequalities based upon race or other identifiable factors),  to the left, seeing race as insignificant is actually racist.  That is, the Left needs racial identity to build class or identity group solidarity.

The Left’s view toward free speech is entirely antithetical to that of traditional Liberals and to the core values of this country.  “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”  That statement encapsulates the essence of our belief in free speech and the free and often passionate interchange of ideas along with the individual's right to hold and speak ideas with which others disagree.  This concept is essential to our democracy.  The Left, on the other hand, would ban all speech which they find offensive or which counters the speech necessary to their vision of what America should be. 

In this suppression of free speech and with it the freedom of individuality in speech, values, and ideas, the Left would eliminate the individual in furtherance of class solidarity.  The Left has contempt for all which does not further its goals.  Indeed, some would completely obliterate anything based on “Western Civilization” which does, indeed, hold most of the underlying principles of America:  morals, ethics, literature, artistic work, music, philosophy, religion.  These are all denounced in one way or another as the Left seeks to remake America.

To the Left, America is a capitalist horror filled only with people who are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.  While Liberals acknowledge that such mindsets exist, they will work to remove the effects of such negative attitudes within our current Constitutional, legal, and capitalist system.  Economically, Liberals' work will be more towards equality of opportunity rather than equality of result.  While Liberals will use the current democratic and capitalist systems to eliminate such things as economic gaps, the Left will ignore individual enterprise and turn to such things as redistribution of income and/or property promulgated by government fiat.

The democratic system of this country will always recognize individuality and with it the unreality of total sameness.  The Left, on the other hand, would envision absolutely no differences in economic or other results; that is, the Left strives for one unified class supervised by a government that holds and enforces Leftist ideals. The individual is lost to the dictates of a large and controlling government who will create what the Leftists (but perhaps not the people) will determine to be good.

No, Liberalism is not Leftism.  While both philosophies currently inhabit the Democrat party, they actually have very little in common.  They do however, both want to take the power of the presidency back from Donald Trump.   Frighteningly, they have joined forces in this; however, the Liberals have, in so doing, forgotten their core belief in and allegiance to this country.  The Left could care less.

This country, while always holding a variety of beliefs, including political, has always been generally united in the core support for the fundamental structure of our government.  That is no longer true.  The Left has a different mission, one not to support and improve America, but to totally destroy it.  They hate not only President Trump, but also his supporters, and every traditional value upon which this country was built.  They will not give up until they have eradicated them all and remade this country into something no longer recognizable as the shining beacon of individual freedoms and democracy.

That is the mission of the Left.  I do not believe that is the mission of Liberals or Conservatives or most Americans.  The mission of the Left is filled with hate and nihilism.  As the rest of us consider our New Year’s resolutions, we can make them ones of respect and tolerance and inclusion.  Rather than discarding all that is good in America simply because it is not perfect, we can make resolutions that improve and strengthen the already greatness of this country and all that it stands for.  We can make that our mission.  I hope that we do.

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.

Debating Socialism

Recently someone suggested that it was time that this country has a debate about socialism vs. our current form of government.  I think that is fine if – and only if! – those engaged in the conversation really understand what socialism is along with other key concepts about governments and political ideologies.  So, here I will present some of those concepts and then my thoughts for those who want to realistically think about or engage in such a debate.

First, we must understand the difference between political philosophies/theories/ideologies (such as socialism) and forms of government (such as democracy).  A political philosophy will take a particular stance as to law and authority, as to what, if any, rights and freedoms a government should protect and what, if any, responsibilities the citizenry of a defined state owes to the government.    A defined state or nation will have a form of government that may align with one or more political ideologies. 

Government is simply the governing body of a defined community such as a nation or state.  Forms of government include Autocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy.  An autocratic government might be an absolute monarchy or a dictatorship; the key is that the power to govern is held by one person.  In an oligarchy the power will be held by a few people who generally get their power from things like ancestry, wealth/status, or military.  In a democracy the government is ruled by the people who hold the power to govern; a republic is a form of democracy.

The United States is a Democratic Republic which is a form of government operating on principles adopted from and shared by both democracy and republic.  In a pure democracy which is governed by all eligible members, the majority will always prevail.  A republic is a state in which supreme 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.

Within any form of government, political parties, including that of the controlling power, will align with and adopt one or more political theories or ideologies.  When one political theory becomes dominant within a particular state, that state may be referred to by that theory’s name (e.g. as Socialist or Capitalist).  Following are those political theories and philosophies that are most relevant to this discussion.

Socialism is a theory for a political and economic system of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  That is, it advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

This is in contrast to Capitalism that is a theory for an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Communism's ideology is an economic and political system in which all property is publicly owned; it adheres to the revolutionary socialism and class warfare of Karl Marx.  While both communism and socialism are anti-capitalist, many forms of socialism allow for some private ownership of property. 

According to Wikipedia, “The majority of self-declared Socialist countries have been Marxist–Leninist states, following the model of the Soviet Union or a variant of people's democracy. They share a common definition of ‘socialism’ and they refer to themselves as Socialist states on the road to communism with a leading vanguard party structure. For this reason, they are generally, called ‘Communist states’ albeit erroneously. Meanwhile, the [socialist] countries in the non-Marxist–Leninist category represent a wide variety of different interpretations of the word ‘socialism’. In many cases, they do not define what they mean by it. Modern uses of the term ‘socialism’ are wide in meaning and interpretation.”   Current self-labeled socialist countries are:  China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam.

Two sub-categories of Socialism are Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.  These terms define particular socialist leaning ideologies or policies of various political parties that exist or have majority control in various countries. 

Social Democracy is an ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic organization and capitalist economy.  One could argue that some of the Nordic countries currently follow social democratic ideologies.

Democratic Socialism (many progressives now identify as democratic socialists) is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production with self or “democratic” management of economic institutions within a market socialist, participatory or decentralized planned economy.  That is, democratic socialism would have the production and provision of certain goods and services owned and run by the government, while leaving others to a more capitalist form of ownership. Wikipedia lists the following countries as currently in the control of a democratic socialist party:  Albania, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Dominica, Equator, El Salvador, Guyana, Jamaica, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Portugal, St. Kitts, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Trinidad, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Moving now to the actual debate, I would first suggest that it actually must be more of a discussion than a debate.   A debate presumes there are only two sides or positions on an issue, one of which must ultimately prevail.  A discussion on the other hand allows for more refined distinctions and compromises which the many definitions of socialism alone demand. Moreover, the debate, as presented, requires pitting a form of government (our Democratic Republic) against a political theory (Socialism).  This is not unlike trying to compare apples and oranges.  The better question is not one of socialism vs. a democratic republic, but rather whether socialism can or should be adopted as a viable political theory within a democratic republic that is generally considered as a capitalist nation. 

I believe that, no matter how the question is presented, our democratic republic based on capitalism is so antithetical to socialism that it is impossible to truly have democratic socialism or any other such marriage of socialism into the defining principles of the United States of America.

The basic question comes down to the role of the individual in his own governance as well as the governance of his community.  Socialism, in all its many forms, will have the government making decisions about the individual and his property, including the fruits of his labor; the government will provide what the individual may otherwise be required to or capable of providing for himself.  In so doing, the government, rather than the individual, will make decisions about what the individual may or may not need.  In order to provide government-controlled services to all members of the community, the individual will be required to relinquish some property, individual accomplishment, and profit as well as some personal decision making that he would otherwise retain. 

The upside of this approach is that one can envision a utopia in which everyone has all that they need and want, where everyone is completely altruistic in all that they give to the body politic, and everyone is happy.  This assumes that those making the governmental decisions will always have only the best interests of the people in mind and that all the citizenry will agree as to the definition of what those “best interests” are.

The downside is that such utopia is totally unrealistic.  And, even if it were, even if those in current power were completely concerned with only the good of everyone, they will not be in power forever. Moreover, the definition of what is “good” is unlikely to be defined identically by all and even if it were, it might easily change to the detriment of some or many.  By giving government the power to act in accordance with what sounds and/or is compassionate today sets the stage for tomorrow’s government to use that same power for ill.

This is true regardless of within what form of government a socialist philosophy is placed.  That is, a benevolent dictator can give way to a tyrannical dictatorship, but also a pure democracy with a benevolent majority can give way to a majority that suppresses basic human rights and dignities if that majority holds the socialist power to regulate the community including the individual’s property, production, needs, and wants.

Here is the beauty of a democratic republic based on capitalist principles.  First, the democratic republic follows the rule of law, not of a tyrannical individual or majority.  It grants to its citizens certain inalienable rights; rights that cannot be denied to the individual based on changing whims of government.  Second, capitalism further solidifies the rights (as well as responsibilities) of the individual.  The individual will be accorded certain rights which the law will protect.  It will allow the individual to pursue the use of his assets (both external and physical as  well as innate and intellectual) as he chooses and will not redistribute his profits to others who have chosen to pursue different paths or to use their assets differently.

This does not mean that a capitalist or non-socialist state cannot be compassionate.  Placed within a democratic form of government where rule is by law, the people who hold the power can, through their elected representative government make the choice to collectively assist those who may need some form of assistance.  But, that decision would be made by the people in a way that does not interfere with defined and constitutionally protected inalienable rights; it would not be a decision made at the whim of some other form of governmental power structure.

Socialism is dangerous.  It sounds wonderful in its utopian equality, but what it really does is end up playing one group of citizens against another while promising utopia to all.  Collectives destroy individual incentives and the result is bread lines and misery.  Recent history saw this in the Soviet Union before its fall and even more recently in Greece’s economic crisis.  Current history sees it playing out in Venezuela.  Even in social democracies that may seem to thrive, how “social justice” is defined by the government in power can result in good or ill for one group or another.

Idealism is beautiful, but it is just that – an ideal, an archetypical idea of unattainable perfection.  It is not real.  Reality includes the imperfect, acknowledges it, and tries to make the best of it.  In my opinion, socialism may be a lovely ideal, but it is not something that can exist is our reality.  Our capitalist Democratic Republic is not perfect, but it is very real, and, it is the only form of government that can respect, reward, and fulfill the individual regardless of who is in power at any given moment.

Socialism, in any of its forms or wrappings, is in direct opposition to the core principles of the United States of America; principles that provide the individual with choice and possibility beyond any that can be offered and that are indeed denied by socialism.  It is these core principles that provide hope and motivation rather than hopelessness and despair.  If a debate between this government and replacing or infusing it with socialism is well informed, I do not see how socialism can possibly win.