Think, Listen, Understand

There can be no center if people do not think for themselves.

Recently I was told the story of a middle school student who, interested in politics, commented that “both sides sound just the same.”  While one’s immediate reaction might be to disagree because certainly the details of what each side says are different, when one looks at the bigger picture one realizes that this middle schooler was absolutely correct.

We have a definite political divide in this country, and each side is hateful toward and intolerant of the other.  Each side’s preference seems to be to deny everything held dear by the other side.  Both sides seem to lack any in-depth knowledge of our country’s history, or our constitution along with its history and subsequent interpretations, or our system of government and what is meant by federalism.  Yet both sides will use all those things to support their positions along with their hatred and denial of the other side.

That’s the big picture, and some might say:  well, if we are so much alike, why can’t we just get along.  But, as others might say, the Devil is in the details.  While we could look at the very specific details of today’s or yesterday’s hateful statements or actions, I think the more important details are just a bit broader and are the details of the values and beliefs of each side that underlie and motivate the hate that each displays.

One side seems to have chosen to dislike this country, its history, and all that it stands for.  They point out every imperfection to their new recruits and tend to see nothing but these imperfections, despising the country for them.  It is as if they are looking at a person covered with warts and are unable to see anything but those warts.

This side believes that the problems with the country stem from its very formation and form.  They believe that the way to fix problems, inequities, disappointments is not to work to make what we have better, but to replace the entire system.  Concurrent with this rejection of our democratic republic often comes a rejection of its underlying values which are primarily Judeo-Christian in origin.

The other side often tends to completely ignore the warts.  They believe in this country and all that it stands for, but often go beyond that to argue that it is perfect, has no negative history (or that such history is in the end justifiable) and needs no improvement.  They certainly do not think that the current system of government should be replaced rather than improved.  And, concurrent with this viewpoint often comes a traditional faith and value system grounded in Judeo-Christian principles.

These two positions are polar opposites and cannot co-exist.  Within a country you can have only one form of government.  You must have a generally agreed upon value system that governs the behavior of society within the country and its approach toward the rest of the world.  Each side’s viewpoint is, in its essence, a mortal threat to the other.

We have two sides that every day dig deeper into their positions, unwilling to listen to, let alone tolerate, the differing viewpoints displayed by the other side.  This country has survived, thrived, and grown only with an ability to hear disagreeing voices, understand them, and find some middle ground.  That cannot happen without tolerance for those who hold beliefs and values that differ from one’s own, a tolerance that seems non-existent today.

Where does this intolerance come from?  I think a big part of it comes from a fear of having one’s own views challenged.  And that fear is fueled by the fact that many do not have the understanding of their views that is necessary to deal with a challenge to them.

We live in a world of sound bites and superficial knowledge.  Everyone can do a Google search on anything, read an article or two, and think that they are an expert, whose opinion is as qualified as one who has studied or practiced that subject for years.  No depth of understanding required.

When superficiality rules, there is no need to think deeply about a subject.  When that comes to political positions or core values it is easy to simply accept the narrative that sounds good without further thought about it or about its consequences.  People find it easier to simply accept the position of another rather than to think for themselves.  And, because the position really belongs to someone else, because it is not one’s own  in the sense that one has not thought about it and does not own it, then the one who has simply adopted it is unable to defend it when challenged. 

This means that, when that position is challenged, rather than carry on a thoughtful discussion about the position, rather than reexamine one’s own beliefs while trying to explain them to another as well as understand differing opinions and what they might have in common with one’s own, the person challenged simply rejects the challenger, refusing to even hear their alternate viewpoint.  They cannot tolerate the alternate viewpoint because it is a threat which they cannot defend against since they do not have the understanding of their own beliefs necessary to do so.  And, this “attack” leads not only to fear, but also to hatred against the attacker because of their threat.

If we were all thinking for ourselves, we would not have these two distinct, irreconcilable, and hateful groups.  Instead we would have a wealth of individuals representing their own person along a broad and diverse spectrum.  But we cannot have that without people using their seemingly long forgotten ability to think for themselves.

With thinking about something comes not only a better understanding of that thing, but also a better understanding of differing views about that thing.  Thinking and understanding deeply allows one to understand the why of their own viewpoints and with that why they can have the courage to have those viewpoints challenged and the courage to tolerate those who hold different views.

This country, our form of government, allows us to hold that individuality even while some would have us give that up.  This country allows us, indeed encourages us, to have not only extreme opposing positions but to listen and learn and come together in some middle ground.  But to have that middle requires that we listen and learn and understand.   And we cannot do that if each opposing side simply dismisses and hates the other.

It is education and thought that give one the courage to lose the fear and its companion intolerance that plague us today.  Without them we will never bridge the gap that grows ever wider and more hateful between opposing political sides; sides that are made up in large part by people who are simply accepting one view and rejecting another without any thought or examination.

This country is not perfect.  It has warts.  But it is not only warts.  It has a beauty and goodness that has always shined through despite those warts and that has led us to ever become better members of the human race.  We cannot let this superficial time in which we live blind us to that. 

The middle school student is on the right track and we must encourage her and her peers to rise up and think, to become the individuals that they are meant to be with views that are their own in depth and understanding, and not simply superficial creations and mimics of others.  They can lead this country back to the centered, tolerant, and diverse society that stands together both despite and because of its individuals and their differences. 

It is that ability to think for oneself with understanding that is at the very core of our society.  Indeed, it is a requirement to have the rights and privileges and freedoms that this democratic republic provides.  Thinking, listening, understanding:  these are our civic duties.  We owe it to that middle schooler to exercise them.

Some Short Notes on the Election

Here are some quick notes for those elected and for those interested in the elections and their aftermath:

1.  Democrats, stop being angry and get something done.  You have had 2 years to vent your anger over the 2016 election.  Now you have control of the House.  This is your opportunity to show us that you can do something besides hate.  I am concerned that already you have ramped up the name calling and hatred against Trump and his administration.  I realize that you don’t like his bluntness and sometimes unsophisticated words, and that, more importantly, you are still angry that he won the presidential election.  But, please, get over it.  Stop acting like angry children and start acting like adult legislators.   Many in this country look at what the President has accomplished for our economy and jobs and in our foreign relations.  They look at his actions rather than his personality and they either support him or believe in working with him and the Republicans to accomplish good things for the country.  Would that the Democrats and the Left would act like that.

2.  Please stop counting numbers of identity groups elected.  If I hear one more time how many women or Blacks or Native Americans or gays or (name any other identity group) that were elected I think I will scream.  Really, who cares? (Sadly, too many).  What I wish we could say is not that the (name your identity group) was elected, but that the best qualified was elected.  Let me make this clear:  simply being a (name your favorite identity group) does not make one qualified for a political job.  Voting based on identity groups just makes it easier for people who don’t want to think and easier for those who don’t want you to think to convince you to vote for their candidate.

3.  Those of you that made promises in order to get elected.  Show the people that you can keep them.  (That, by the way, is what our president has done)

4.  Those of you that won, remember that now you represent all the people within your district or state, not just those who supported you.  Do what is right for all of them, even if sometimes that is not what you personally want.  Don’t be afraid to work across the aisle and don’t think you must always simply regurgitate your Party’s line.  Remember, it is not about you; you are now a public servant and you represent the people.

5.  Those of you elected were elected to the greatest democracy in the world.  Please remember and respect that.  America is a Democratic Republic.  It is not a democracy of mob rule.  It is not socialist.  It is a country with borders and with a Constitution and rule of law that governs and protects us all.   You will be required to take an oath to support that.  Please take your oath seriously.

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.