Clear as Mud

I recently read an op-ed column that began: “It is clear we have real racial problems in this country….”

Now, as a writer myself I understand that sometimes we begin with phrases like this, often called “throat clearing” phrases, that are simply a way to get us started.  But, that being said, my immediate reaction to this was “No, it is not clear and by the way, do we really have real racial problems in this country?” 

My next thought is, “No, I don’t think so.”  What we do have is a lot of people who don’t have the life that they would like to have and/or who are jealous of some of the lives of others.   We have people who like to blame others for their own discontent.  Those things are, of course, part of human nature.

But what we also have are people who use the discontent of others to agitate and create anger and hate which they then use not to remedy the discontented but to further their own gain.  Indeed, this is the classic tactic of Marxism and Socialism and even of community organizing. Rather than encouraging self-examination or reminding that life is not fair, they will encourage seeing individual dissatisfactions as resulting from a larger, group oppression of some sort. 

Find a common dissatisfaction, find someone to blame, agitate the dissatisfied to attack the one who has been assigned the blame.  The result may improve the lives of the dissatisfied temporarily, but its real goal is to make the dissatisfied indebted to the agitator.

The Democrats have become masters at this.  They create identity groups and then use them until they are no longer useful.  We had the pussy-hat marches a couple of years ago, we had the many LGBTQ protests and demands.  Now we have the BLM organization, pushed by progressives and other Leftists who, seeing an opportunity in George Floyd’s death, have fomented anti-white, anti-law enforcement, anti-rule of law and Constitution, anti-American sentiment, leading to the devastation of many cities in this country.  Their goal is not to end racism but to end the presidency of Donald Trump and to push this country ever closer to a complete restructuring into socialism.

This is not racism.  This is not a racial problem.  This is a political problem created by very skillful politicians.  Now before you come to send me to a reeducation camp, I am not saying that racism does not exist.  It does, it always has, and it always will.  It is human nature to be wary of those different from us, whether in behavior or skin color or dress or any number of things.  Sometimes that wariness will cross the line and become racist.  But that does not mean that the country has a racial problem. 

It does mean that we have fallen into the divisive tribalism of identity politics.  And, if the agitated identity group is a particular race, then that group will see its oppression as racist.  And if their blame target is a governmental system, then they will assert that the system is racist.  But that does not make it so. 

Racism is not just being aware that someone is in some way different from oneself.  Racism is “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”  There was a time in this country, as well as in much of the world, when Black people were considered in some way less than human or at least inferior enough to justify slave-holding.  There was a time when Blacks could not mix with Whites in any way, not even at the drinking fountain. 

In large part due to our form of democracy and our Constitution we were able to move through and forward from those times.  We acknowledged the errors and did what we could to make the way forward better.  We passed civil rights legislation.  We created things like affirmative action.  We integrated schools.  Some people did better with these new opportunities than did others.

But one group who has always found something to their own advantage in Black issues is the Democrats.  As the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s presented Blacks with opportunities to move forward, the Democrats also saw an opportunity to create a permanent underclass of supportive voters. 

By creating entitlements and encouraging Blacks to become permanently dependent on those entitlements the Democrats were able to keep them “in their place.”  That is, entitlement dependence has a way of destroying motivation and independence.  It becomes necessary to keep the benefactor in power so as not to lose one’s benefits.  And, coexistent with this loss of self is the belief that one is somehow “less than” and not able to do as well as others.  One comes to accept one’s fate as somehow second class.

With that second class feeling comes discontent.  Discontent that is ripe to be agitated into anger and a belief that one has been and is being discriminated against.  And that, I think, is what we are really seeing when we say that “it is clear we have racial problems.”

But that is not a racial problem.  Those who have been enticed into becoming an underclass are now grouped into an identity class and directed toward a target to blame for their discontent.  That target is “racism”, now asserted to be systemic and hence anything or anyone associated with or supportive of traditional American institutions.

This is false racism, and it is a problem.  Those who are against the traditional American system of government are using the cover of racism to further their own anti-American agenda.  “Racism” is the smoke screen; it is the weapon that is being aimed at America.  But America, while it does have racists, is not itself racist.  And, if anyone would read its history and the words of its founders (before those books are all burned along with the statues), they would see that this country’s founding ideals were not racist.  Even if the racism that accompanied the acceptance of slavery was once a part of the system, it is not now. 

I think the better statement would be, “It is clear we have a real anti-American problem within this country.”  That is, we have a significant group who do not believe in or support our form of government and our Constitution.  Their goal is to entirely dismantle it, in essence destroy the soul that is America, and then remake it into something else.  The “racial problems” are asserted and then encouraged; they are a part of the identity politics which are a key tool in the attacks designed to deconstruct America.

So, while there may be individual acts of racism against which we should all speak out, the bigger and more pervasive problem is the misuse of a manufactured and false “institutionalized” racism to attack America.  And, in a way, that is the real racism – the methods used by Democrats to first create a dependent underclass and then to agitate that group into an identity political battalion being used to further the Left’s quest for power and domination.

 

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.