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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignorance, Stupidity, or Just Simple Brainwashing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short Notes on the First Amendment and Today’s News

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

The Baby or the Bath Water?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Democrats,

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

Do you really understand that which you are preferring?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, is it really so wonderful?

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

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

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

Let’s consider how a capitalist economy differs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Can Prefer One’s Own Culture Without Being Racist

Liking, even preferring, one’s own culture does not make one racist.  Racism is: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.  In that vein, a white supremacist is a person who believes that the White race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.  But, and this is mightily important, simply preferring one culture over another does not necessarily mean that one believes that culture is superior, it does not make one racist, and, if that culture is white, it does not mean that one is a white supremacist.

Let’s think about holidays.  Various cultures celebrate holidays in various manners.  In this country’s melting pot, the traditions of some cultures may have been assimilated into the cultures of others.  Nonetheless, those of particular ethnic backgrounds will celebrate a particular holiday primarily with traditions that reflect the ethnicity of their ancestors.  They prefer to celebrate that way for a variety of reasons, most of which do not reflect any sort of animosity toward the ways in which those with other ethnic backgrounds may celebrate.  It simply represents their particular preference.   Really, this is no different from someone preferring to live in the city or in a condo while someone else may prefer to live in a house or a tent or an RV.  The preference does not automatically reflect prejudice against those who prefer to live differently.

Here is, then, another key word:  Tolerance.  This is a word that seems to have been forgotten by many today.  It is the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.  Preferring one behavior, one course of action, or even one culture does not mean that one cannot be tolerant of those other behaviors, action, and yes, even cultures.  But, tolerance does not require that one like or approve of those things with which one does not agree, nor does it require that one change one’s own preferences to agree with those that one is tolerating.  And, sometimes, behaviors that are being tolerated cannot coexist; hence, in some instances, those preferring differing behaviors will self-segregate – into different communities, or even different countries.

So, when someone says related to both illegal and legal immigration that “in some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” or that “how radically in some ways the country has changed” (see comments of Laura Ingraham 8/8/18), she is not necessarily making racist statements.  There are those who prefer the traditional Judeo-Christian western European culture of America.  Immigration of different cultures bring changes, and in some areas those changes are indeed drastic.  Some may not like those changes because they include the existence of beliefs or behaviors with which one does not agree.  One might prefer to be surrounded by cultures that reflect their own ethnicity rather than that of other ethnicities.  There is nothing racist about that.  It becomes racist only if one seeks to discriminate against those other cultures based upon race.

One can be against immigration and not be a racist.  Immigration is a complex issue that involves far more than the culture or color of those who seek to immigrate.  There are economic issues; there are issues of safety; there are resource and environmental issues.  There is the question of assimilation vs. coexistence.  There is the issue of a country’s basic existence as a country, a place with cohesive shared values and goals.

The United States has always had, and still has a most generous immigration policy.  But it is not wrong for one to expect those who seek to join this country to have some appreciation for its values and yes, its culture.  One does not expect an immigrant to want to come to a country and then to change the essential characteristics of that country.   America has always welcomed immigrants who appreciate the core values and characteristics of this country.  But, an unspoken piece of that welcome is that those joining our society will be tolerant of its existing culture just as they can expect a tolerance by the citizens of their own cultural backgrounds.  What I do not think they can expect is that the current citizenry necessarily embrace (as opposed to tolerate) their culture or give up their preferences for their own culture and traditions.

Today many Americans see an effort to completely remake their country, leaving no room for their own values.  When David Brooks seems to disparage whites who think being white is “part of their identity” (See PBS Newshour 8/10/18) he is condemning them for something that he and other progressives uphold and encourage in other races and cultures.  Imagine if we were to condemn Blacks for thinking that being Black is part of their identity –  we would certainly call that racist.  But apparently it is not OK to hold that same thought if one is White; rather, to do so labels one as white supremacists.  It is that sort of hypocrisy that offends many.

There are, indeed, many Americans whose heritage and culture are what is often referred to as White.  A pride in that heritage, a preference for the traditions of that culture does not make one racist or a white supremacist.  A demand that those with other traditions, backgrounds, or cultures tolerate rather than seek to abolish that “white” heritage is not an unreasonable demand.

I realize there are those who will see the above as some sort of code advocacy for white supremacy.  It is not.  White supremacy is not a tradition or value of white European heritage.  Yes, there are those whites who do hold racist or supremacist beliefs, just as there are those of every color and culture who hold such beliefs about their own race or culture.  But, the vast majority of whites simply want to be able to retain their traditions; they are fully capable of doing so while being tolerant of other traditions.  I am not sure that those progressives and others who love to condemn everything white are capable of doing the same.

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.