Horseshoes Anyone? It Depends.

 I find that in political discussions my positions are often opposed by both Right and Left.  A current example:  I adamantly support Israel, its position on the war, on Gaza, and on its right to exist.  I also adamantly support the right to protest in favor of Palestine, Gaza, and against Jews, even though I find such views abhorrent.  I supported the Harvard president in her testimony about the Harvard student protests and oppose Rep. Stefanic and others who are keen on silencing her and other university presidents who testified.  I find Stefanic to be doing exactly what she condemns the Left for doing – trying to silence those views with which she disagrees.

This sort of hypocrisy from both Right and Left which is more and more the norm these days along with the denial from both sides that they do what they condemn the other side for doing, is more than annoying, but even worse is the fact that so few are willing to see or acknowledge it.  The extremes of both sides are dug in against one another and yet cannot see that they and their enemy are more alike than they are different.

Trying to explain this in the context of political discussions with individuals who clearly identify with Right or Left is difficult.  But recently I was reminded of the horseshoe theory of politics, and that indeed is a perfect explanation.  Moreover, it leads me to realize that if this dynamic of our politics continues we absolutely must see the development of a strong third party (perhaps as the two extremes merge into one?) if our country as we know it is to survive.

The Horseshoe Theory

The horseshoe theory holds that the political spectrum, rather than being shaped as a straight line, is in the shape of a horseshoe.  The center of the horseshoe represents the political center and as you move upward toward the end of either side you will move more and more to the Right or the Left until you reach the end of each side where reside the Far Right and Far Left. 

You will note that these ends of the horseshoe bend toward one another indicating, according to this theory, that the Far Right and Far Left, rather than being at opposite ends of a linear continuum, approach and are really quite similar to one another.

While this theory is often criticized for being too simplistic, I think that it is worth thinking about, if for no other reason than to try to objectively view one’s own viewpoint in contrast and comparison with that of one’s own political foes.

What makes the extremes similar while still appearing different?

The commonly used example of sameness is Communism (Left, strong central state, work for common good) and Fascism (Right, strong central state, work for the common good).  There are of course differences: Communist ideals include a classless society with economic equality while Fascism includes a top-down class system and rule by dictator. 

But we can certainly come up with more topical concrete examples. Consider identity politics.  The Left likes to identify people based on certain characteristics and then label these groups as victim or victimizer (e.g. white vs. black, male vs. female, rich vs. poor, etc.).  The Right complains about such identity politics and yet it also uses this approach as it condemns members of groups that advocate (usually progressive) ideas that the Right opposes (thus, enemy groups include LGBTQ, anti-traditional religion, abortion advocates, etc.). 

Again, there are differences, not only with the specifics, but Left identity groups tend to be based upon external and often immutable characteristics  while the Right’s placement of someone in an identity group more often begins with a belief that they hold that is contrary to that held by the Right.  But regardless, the end result is that both Left and Right create identity groups and then either embrace or condemn all those whom they have placed into that group.

For both Far Right and Far Left, a person’s color affects the group’s perception of them.  The Left sees white people as oppressors and racists while people of color are seen as victims of that oppression.  The Right condemns people of color for what they see as taking advantages including jobs, education, etc. from white people due to affirmative action type programs.  Both Far Right and Far Left reduce individuals to a perceived group identity.

Cancel culture and free speech are other areas in which the Far Right and Far Left are more similar than different.  The Left will gladly justify the silencing of those holding views contrary to their progressive values; for example, they will gladly shout down a pro-life or anti-transgender speaker but will assert the rights of protesters to call for the annihilation of Jews.   Meanwhile, the Right will attempt to silence those who protest or support the right to protest for Palestine and Hamas but will demand the freedom of speech for advocates against progressive ideals.  The Right condemns the Left for censorship and silencing in various areas such as vaccine debates.  Yet the Right would silence progressive views by condemning and banning books relating to gender identity.

Both sides will assert the Constitution and the First Amendment free speech right as their support for their approved speech, but they seem to forget those things when they wish to silence speech with which they don’t agree.

In deciding whether Trump should be allowed to appear on primary ballots, the Far Right suddenly ignores their previous demands that the courts and especially SCOTUS be literalists in their reading of the Constitution and not cave to or interpret the Constitution’s plain and clear language to satisfy popular demand.  Meanwhile, the Left is now looking for a simple reading of the 14^th Amendment within the 4 corners of its language.

Both sides also regularly use ad hominem attacks (directing their opposition and anger against the person rather than the position maintained by that person).  Again, while the precise form or will differ language (e.g. racist, communist, fascist, deplorable, plain stupid etc., all of which and more I have personally been called by both the Left and the Right), the bottom line is that both sides find it easier to engage in name-calling rather than to engage in a rational discussion about their differing views, a discussion in which they begin by acknowledging the other’s right to hold a view different from their own.

A horseshoe?  It depends.

Whether this horseshoe theory works depends on what you are comparing.  If you look at the specifics you can conclude that the theory fails – the sides are nothing alike.  Certainly shouting down a pro-life speaker is nothing like trying to silence someone who yells “from the River to the Sea.”  The words are different, the issue being addressed is different, the people involved are different.  And you may agree with one speech but disagree with the other.

And yet, if we go beyond the surface, they are far more alike than different.  In both cases there is an attempt to deny someone their First Amendment right to speak their opinion.  It denies others of hearing that opinion which in itself goes against one of the cornerstones of our democracy: our form of government demands a free marketplace of ideas where all will be heard and individuals will be left to make up their own minds rather than be told by government or some other majority what they can, cannot, and must believe and what they can and cannot say.

Beyond ignoring this core principle, it also violates the tolerance that is a necessary characteristic if our free society is to succeed.

Claudine Gay was attacked for saying “it depends on context” in regard to whether the pro-Palestinian protests violated her school’s code of conduct.  But that is exactly what a good American should say.  As a mentor of mine recently stated:

[S]everal decades of "critical thinking" being taught in junior and senior high schools didn't seem to deal appropriately with the meaning of "critical" in the context.   The guy who taught my [children] in the so-called "gifted" program would just review whatever he had heard on NPR on the drive to school.  

Remember my admonition to [pre-law] students - every question you are going to face should be answered, in the first instance with two words - "It Depends".   Instead each side gets its thinking orders from Fox or MSNBC and then proceeds to see everything through that lens.  All surface.

In the case of the protests and conduct codes, one would have to look at the actual activity and the language of the codes to understand whether this was within the context of speech which, though abhorrent, was within the First Amendment rights of the students to utter, or was this more, perhaps combined with actual violence or immediate threats thereof?  If we allow the silencing of speech alone, no matter how abhorrent, in essence we are advocating the end to the protections of the First Amendment for all Americans. 

It all depends. Not just determining free speech rights, but in determining most of the underlying issues of our day and of our country.   It does often depend on context.   But core rights such as free speech should not depend upon one’s view or on the speech being uttered.  Yet for too many on both the Far Right and Far Left, freedom of speech depends upon what is being spoken. 

That hypocritical ability to view the same core concepts differently depending upon what one is seeking to accomplish is the similarity that drives the two political extremes to become almost as one.  While their stated goals may be different, their means are the same and both conflict with our core democratic principles.

Think

Good Americans think.  They ask why.  The extremes of both the right and the left are too wrapped up in themselves and their mandatory causes to understand the phrase “it depends.”  They don’t think, or if they do, they don’t understand that issues can be more complex than a simple yes or no, black or white, up or down, day or night. Yet if they apply this thought process to their own views as well as those of others, they may realize that they are often doing exactly that for which they condemn their opponents.

So, if we go beyond the surface, if we look beyond the overt details to the deeper concepts directing various actions, we will likely see far more similarity than difference between the two extremes of the political spectrum.

I think it is that deeper conversation that desperately needs to be had in America today.  People need to think and ask why rather than simply accept what they are told and the soundbites they repeat from their chosen news source.  That conversation can only be had if the conversants understand the why underlying the positions they assert.  Otherwise, when their position is countered they likely feel threatened because they don’t really understand the position that they are parroting and so a simple contradiction of their position and memorized phrases becomes almost a contradiction of themselves.  It is impossible to reason and explain a position that is merely memorized but not understood. 

When the focus becomes upon only the surface dissimilarities rather than the suggestion of complexity, any hope of real understanding is likely to dissolve and become something akin to a playground dispute.   If forced to look at the deeper concepts the response is likely either to attack not the ideas of the counterargument, but rather to attack the bearer of the unmemorized, considered idea, or to simply run away.

The Parties – not for most Americans

The horseshoe theory is a somewhat simplistic way of viewing politics and political parties, but it is a good place to begin to review one’s own views as well as those of one’s opponents.

Both the Republican and the Democrat parties currently seem in large part controlled by their extremes. It would be more likely that they merge into one than that they actually distinguish themselves on underlying principles.  In the end, both sides seek power to control the rest of society – individual thoughts, beliefs, and actions would all fall under their control.   While what might be allowed or condemned would differ, both would take away individual right and responsibility to choose.  That is not American, not traditional and not progressive.

Indeed, both extremes are more than willing to dismiss the Constitution, the rule of law, and any number of core American principles to ensure that all individuals conform to what they think is proper and good.   That is not America, traditional or progressive.

I think that, divorced from their chosen Right or Left newsfeeds, most Americans would fall somewhere near the middle of the horseshoe, rising a bit to the Right on some things, to the Left on others.  But we have given those Americans (including myself) nowhere to go.  If both the current major parties are but two sides of the same extreme then Americans are almost forced to take sides against one another rather than work together for solutions to serious problems. 

We need a middle party.  A strong middle party, not just a third party stealer but a real party that represents the vast number of Americans who find themselves standing on one or the other end of the horseshoe – a place where they really don’t want to be.

2024

It is almost, but not yet, too late for the appearance of a candidate who fits more to the middle of the horseshoe.  It could come from a third party or it could come from one or both of the major parties.  Donald Trump or Joe Biden (or hopefully both) could be replaced by candidates more representative of the middle, candidates who have slid down from those horseshoe extremes to a point of moderation that allows them to represent the policy positions of their party in reasonable ways, avoiding the extremism and lack of cooperation and compromise that are the destructive stance of both parties today.

We can only hope.

Israel Aid Bill – an Anti-Semitic Hobson’s Choice

Mike Johnson’s Israel aid bill is anti-Semitic.  There, I said it.  And here’s why.

Israel, our close ally, needs our aid in its fight against the terrorist Hamas.  It is traditional for the US to supply such aid without strings attached and without playing political games.

While it made sense to disengage the Israel aid bill from a bill to provide more aid to Ukraine, that should have been done without the attachment of a poison pill. 

But Johnson has made aid to Israel contingent upon cuts to IRS funding that will pay for the bill.  That is, he has made aid to Israel contingent upon a vote for a Republican partisan cause.  This is purely political; this bill, if passed, is dead on arrival at the Senate and thus whether passed or not in the House, it will not provide any aid to Israel.

Never before has this country made emergency aid to a close ally directly contingent upon a cut in other government spending.  While I personally oppose, for many reasons, the IRS and other funding in the Inflation Reduction Act, this is not the time or place to cut that funding in order to provide aid to Israel that is fighting a war for its very existence.  This is not the time for political gamesmanship.

Johnson’s first act as Speaker was to pass a resolution in support of Israel.  But when it comes to actually providing aid that Israel desperately needs, he turns the problem into a political game where he can grandstand for the Right wing of his party while putting Israel last.

The bill sets up a Hobson’s choice in which Congressional representatives are put in the position of accepting one of two choices, both of which are equally objectionable.  There is really no choice or alternative to having to select a completely objectionable result.

No American should vote for a bill which puts emergency aid to an ally contingent on passage of a partisan and political funding cut elsewhere.  This is a horrid and frightening precedent to set.

Congressional Representatives are asked to vote for a bill that is bad for America in order to vote for necessary aid to our ally.  If they choose to vote for this important aid to Israel they in effect must vote against America and if they vote for America they end up existentially hurting Israel.

This is not right.  And in my mind it is just another form of anti-Semitism.  Shame on the Speaker and shame on anyone who stands with him on this bill. 

This bill should and must be immediately amended to simply provide to Israel the aid that it needs as it fights for its very life against terrorism. 

Israel

Saturday morning when the terrorist attacks on Israel by Hamas began, the world changed.  There is the world before Simchat Torah 5784 and the world after.  And there is the transition zone which, sadly, is where we are now.

We are not only on the brink of World War 3, but we have people cheering for annihilation of not only Israel but of all the Jews.  Pro-Palestinian protestors around the globe, including right here in the USA, shout “Kill the Jews”, “Gas the Jews”, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” (meaning that the entire State of Israel, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will be destroyed). 

The history and facts of Israel from times before Christ to the present, do not support or justify the claims by Palestine against Israel.  An objective recitation of this history is hard, but not impossible, to find these days and I wish that more people would study it.  But, even assuming that the claims against Israel were true, even if one chooses to see Palestinians as some sort of victims of Israel, and even if they choose to mount pro-Palestinian protests, it does not justify supporting the heinous, violent, and inhuman acts committed by the Hamas terrorists.

We have totally lost our moral compass.   The bleeding hearts, who want to excuse every offense and create offenses where none exist, still cannot bring themselves to distinguish a terrorist from someone with an alleged grievance.  To do so would disrupt their utopian false truth; they cannot see that their utopic vision is not and never will be a reality.  And yet their hearts are cold as stone towards the atrocities committed against Jews.  That, in my book, is clear antisemitism.

The Current Dysfunction

How did we come to this point?  The answer to that has many layers.  We can start with the present which includes the current administration’s completely dysfunctional international policies and actions. America has gone from a strong international voice for, and beacon of, democracy to a weak and dysfunctional shadow of its former self.

The dysfunction of this administration includes:

• The Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco that allowed terrorists to supply themselves with American weapons.
• A failure to even attempt to understand the Russian view on Ukraine, while pushing Putin into a position where he was left with little choice but to attack Ukraine.
• Supporting not only the military actions in Ukraine but also the corrupt use of American funds to sustain the entire Ukraine economy.
• Failing to support the Abraham Accords and not only allowing but tacitly encouraging the rise in anti-Semitic behavior here and around the world.  
• Providing $6 billion to Iran, knowing that Iran is a supporter of the terrorist acts against Israel.

The press has not been silent, but it carefully edits its words to downplay the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah (also attacking Israel from Lebanon) are terrorist organizations:

• Rather than use the word terrorist they call them simply militant groups.
• The defensive acts of Israel are equated with the unprovoked terrorism of Hamas.
• Israel is blamed for collateral damage of their defensive strikes, but there is little notice that the terrorists intentionally targeted innocents, children, and babies and further that the death they imposed upon those innocents was prolonged with pain and horrendous suffering.
• The media mostly fails to report that while Israel attempts to avoid civilian and other collateral damage, Hamas actually uses civilians and especially children as shields as they place their military sites directly under or above places such as hospitals and schools.

You cannot equate the aggressive and horrendous actions of Hamas with the self-defensive acts of Israel!  Yet too many, whether with or without knowledge of the actual facts, do.

Beyond the Surface – Humanity, Purpose, and Amalek

The misguided and dysfunctional political and media actions only touch the surface.  We live in a country where the people have a voice.  Yet, that voice remains either silent or simply a thoughtless mouthpiece for the buzz words, phrases, and memes of the Left.  How did the American people lose not only their voices but their minds?

An Israeli soldier currently fighting in Gaza referred to his enemy as Amalek.   In the Hebrew Bible, Amalek is both a nation and a nomadic tribe seen to be the arch-rival of ancient Israel.   While the Amalekite nation no longer exists, Jewish wisdom holds that the memory of the devious enemy Amalek lives on in in all forms of antisemitism carried out against Jewish people.

According to Midrash (Hebrew Biblical interpretation) Amalek represents the belief in chance, of the haphazard dictates of “fate” and “destiny,” which oppose the Jewish belief in Divine providence. Amalek’s philosophy negates the concept that there is a purpose to humanity or to creation itself, again the antithesis of Jewish philosophy.   Amalek’s chief weapon is to foment doubt among the faithful.

Regardless of whether one believes in or has even read Judeo-Christian scripture and teachings, I think this description of Amalek provides a wonderful way to characterize and personify much of what we see around us and the causes of this void and valueless place in which the world finds itself today.  

Let’s just take the phrase, “Amalek’s philosophy negates the concept that there is a purpose to humanity.”  All around us we see that human life has become or is becoming meaningless, with no value.  It has become disposable.  Why is it so easy to kill another human being over such simple things as who gets a parking spot?  It is easy if one believes that humanity is meaningless.  And if one’s life is meaningless, why would several lives suddenly have meaning?  Mass shootings, if life is meaningless, then are themselves meaningless; they are easy to carry out if one need feel no guilt about killing what one sees as a purposeless nothing nor compassion for meaningless corpses.  It becomes easy to be only concerned with satisfying one’s own urges at any one moment if anyone who might be hurt by that satisfaction is nothing but meaningless and valueless.

That sentence continues “or [no purpose] to creation itself.”  If there is no purpose to creation, no need to find meaning in something greater than oneself, then, again, there is no need to even have a moral compass let alone consider whether performance of some heinous act might violate it.  Indeed, “Amalek’s chief weapon is to foment doubt among the faithful.” 

The influence of Amalek is seen well beyond Israel and the Jewish faith.  All around us we see people leaving their faith, people who have a huge void within themselves because they have nothing greater than themselves to believe in.  This loss in faith, this loss in human purpose is killing us all.

Will the world awake; will we save ourselves?

What has happened to us as a nation and a world?  We have listened to the voice of Amalek who has led us to doubt who and what we are.  But it is not just our belief in something greater than ourselves that is doubted and lost.  With a loss in faith we have lost all the values that come with that faith.  Our whole culture now leads us to doubt and deny everything that has made us the great nation that we are.   We are led to believe that we can and do take the place of God; that we need nothing but ourselves.  And with that seems to come the belief that we are entitled to whatever we desire regardless of whom that may hurt.

Those who see this as the Utopia they dream of do not want it questioned. They take command over what we learn.  Schools no longer teach children to use their minds to think and critically assess an issue.  We erase history, ignoring not only the sage wisdom that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” but also the fact that “Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.” 

We evolve as a society and civilization in part because we learn and grow from the past and in part because we value our purpose as one individual within humanity at large.  And when one has a purpose, one generally sees that purpose as a part of a greater good.  As such, one values human life beyond one’s own selfish being. 

Today’s leaders leave much to be desired.  But we the people also leave much to be desired.  We have stopped thinking.  We have stopped caring.  We have stopped believing.  We are being led by false but devious dreams created by Amalek and many leaders along with their followers whom he represents.  We have lost our purpose and our soul. 

There is time.  The terrorist attacks on Israel have shaken the world as have the reactions to those attacks.  The question is:  Are they enough to shake us all awake from the nihilistic nightmare future that the devious tactics of Amalek have put before us?

Joshua fighting Amalek, A print from the Phillip Medhurst Collection of Bible illustrations in the possession of Revd. Philip De Vere at St. George’s Court, Kidderminster, England.  CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Two Truths

“Everything faded into mist.  The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.

               -George Orwell, 1984

I look about me and think to myself that maybe, in today’s world, there is not one, but two truths that are trying to but cannot coexist.  At least, while likely not true for universal truths, it seems that people are willing to adjust their definition of daily truths to one that coincides with their wishes and desires.

We often like to say: look at the facts, the evidence, because it cannot lie.  And while that is true, it may not necessarily be the truth of our daily life.  For some, truth is absolute realism.  Picture a painting of a table on which stands a wilted bouquet of flowers.  That may be what indeed a photograph would capture at that moment. 

Now picture the same painting but with a glorious and bountiful bouquet of freshly blooming flowers.  The painter may be thinking that if he tends to his garden, that will be the bouquet that he can paint next week.  It does not exist today, but for him it absolutely exists in the future and hence is part of his truth today.

Early in the Soviet era writer Maxim Gorky counseled a young writer that it is not enough to say “I wrote the truth.”  Rather, the author must ask himself two questions:  Which truth? and Why?  At that time Gorky was referring to the truth of pre-revolutionary Russia versus the truth of what Russia was becoming.

Much the same may be going on in today’s America.  Those who would have America remain true to her core values and the Constitution see truth as the descriptions, facts, and evidence that are true to that America and the traditional beliefs/values of its population.  Those who are looking for great social change see truth in the picture they paint of what we can be and are becoming.  To them it is true that a person can choose their gender or shift it as they please, resulting in statements such as “men can become pregnant”, a statement which is factually and scientifically inaccurate and thus not a truth to the realists, but something which those trying to recreate a future see as a realistic future truth and hence a truth to them today.

Obviously, these opposing truths and many others cannot coexist.  Laws are affixed to one reality.  Opposing truths result in opposing laws or just anarchy.  Education – its needs, goals, and how to achieve them – is similarly at odds.  How one manages everything, from the food one puts on one’s plate to international relations, suffers.  The concept of opposing truths is currently on full display in the reactions to the terrorist attacks on Israel:  those whose truth is the factual history of the region are in opposition to those whose truth is the factually inaccurate but desired narrative that Israel is a guilty oppressor.

If the revolutionaries (and that is perhaps a good term for the progressive Left and its truth) prevail, then their narrative which is their truth, while not the reality of today, will become the reality of tomorrow.

That might not be so if we retain a pathway to current and past truths of this country and its values, accomplishments, and failures.  But if they are not retained, even if only as part of history, then they will be lost, and the revolutionary truths will be the only truths.

Interestingly, some would argue that part of the reason for the fall of Soviet Russia is that it retained and revered its prerevolutionary classics.   The works of the great Russian authors – Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Chekhov, etc. – retained a picture of the prerevolutionary reality and the values it conveyed, values that were in direct opposition to Communism.  At least some have traced the intellectual force behind Gorbachev’s glasnost to be the youthful reading of Russia’s great literature.  “The Bolsheviks did not realize that by having their children read Tolstoy…they were digging the grave of their revolution.” (Slezkine, The House of Government, quoted in Morson, Wonder Confronts Certainty).

Perhaps today’s Progressive Left learned from that Bolshevik mistake.  Perhaps it is for that reason that they feel the need to cancel and destroy anything that represents the past and current truth of America and how they justify their openly asserted belief that free speech must be canceled.  If there is no other truth, then their revolutionary truth that is yet to be can become the only truth. 

The analogy is not completely misplaced because for the Progressive Left, the destruction and reimagining of America is as obsessive a cause as was the Russian revolution to the Bolsheviks.  As the Russian people discovered, when the revolutionary lie becomes the truth then the reality is not that of the glorious utopian vision, but a very ugly existence. 

But the Russian people had access to their past truth, a truth that was actually more real than that within which they lived.  If today’s Progressive Left Cancel Culture has its way, we and future generations will not have that access.  We will not know what else was and could have been, and our truth will be as hollow as the unachievable dream narratives of the Progressives.

Like Gorky we must ask: Which truth and Why?  The truth that has been America for 247 years, or the truth that the Progressive Left believes will become the new truth.  A vision is not a truth but a narrative dream.  America’s truth is fading into the mist.  We must not allow America’s truth to be erased and the Left’s revolutionary dream to become a nightmare of false truth.

(Image AI Generated in response to prompt “Two Truths in Opposition")

Three Approaches that Make America

Since we seem unable in today’s world to carry on non-partisan political discussions about important policies and societal concerns, perhaps it is time for a new way of looking at things and at our fellow human beings.  Perhaps the following is a way to do this, or to at least assist us all in understanding our society and those who view it somewhat differently than do we.

While the animosity and disruption in our society today is most frequently identified as Red vs. Blue politics, I think that conflict is simply the way something else is manifesting itself.  I think that we are actually seeing a struggle between three different approaches to existence that are all struggling to find their way in the rapidly changing world of today. 

These three approaches are:

1. The Progressives who are for social change.
2. The Conventionals who are for the established institutions.
3. The Populists who are for the people.

The three approaches are actually all interrelated, and we all use all three approaches from time to time, but we generally lean more heavily toward one approach.    These leanings are resulting in support for or opposition to particular political policies and approaches as each approach struggles to become dominant. 

Approach	Progressive	Conventional	Populist
Primary Concern	For Social Change	For Established Institutions	For the People
Role	Starters of Action	Holders of Status Quo	Concluders and Transitioners
Political approaches	·        Socialist ·        Big government ·        Little individual freedom	·        Conservative ·        Democratic republic ·        Restricted freedom	·        Pure democracy ·        Minimal government ·        Individual freedom with minimal restriction
Role	Starter/Instigator/ Visionary/Disrupter	Stabilizer/Inflexible/ Defender/ Institutionalist	Enforcer/Fluid/ Finalizer /Majority
Today primarily	Progressive Left	Traditional moderate Republicans and Democrats	MAGA Republicans
Interactions	Need Populist support to enact social change; if change is effected, need Conventional support to defend and stabilize it.	Will fully embody Progressive vision once convinced to support it and/or once it becomes established.  Slows impulsiveness of Progressives and Populists	Mutability creates vulnerability to new Inspirations. Effectuate/complete a vision and lead transition to new change.

The Progressives

These are the starters, the visionaries.  They have an idea, and they want to see it implemented.  They believe their vision is a good one, though others may disagree with that assessment.  Their goal is to generally upend what currently exists and replace it with what they view as something better, whether that is for society/the world at large or simply in regard to a particular problem.

These are the socialists who seek a bigger government to support and control the societal changes which they advocate.    Socialism, according to Marx, is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.  

But these can also be the Progressive Republicans who would similarly dismantle some of our longstanding institutions in favor of Populist dreams; their method is not socialism but pure democracy which in essence is simply mob rule.   Mob rule, whether in conjunction with or in opposition to a Progressive vision, can upend existing conventions in the hopes of replacing them with something better.

The vision of the Progressives is fragile.  That is, the goal is to demolish what exists and then build anew.  This is not something that people easily jump on board with.  The vision of the Progressives needs the Populists to lend support.  Only with that support will they be able to alter the fixed society of the Conventionals.   Once the Populists take control and convince the Conventionals to support their cause, society will shift as necessary to make the institutional position conform so that the vision of the Progressives can be realized.

The Conventionals

These are the conservatives, not necessarily in the common political connotation, but in the sense that they are reluctant to change.  Rather than jump to support current popular trends or policies, they will instead support longstanding institutions that are a part of the current societal status quo.

This gives stability to a society, but it also encourages a slower evolution as the Conventionals will need both time and strong evidence supporting any need to change that upon which their society is based.  Once a particular society is established with its culture and its underlying institutions, this group will fully embody and defend it.

The problem that the Conventionals face is that once the Populists become the majority, they will either prevail by simple mob rule or, if their populist view conforms with the vison of the Progressives the two will become an almost invincible force.

Today these are the establishment Republicans as well as the traditional moderate or “lunch bucket” Democrats.  While these groups find much to be lacking in our current government, they are more likely to blame the individuals rather than the underlying institutions.  These are often today’s Independents or those who feel that their party, be it Republican or Democrat, has abandoned them.

The Populists

These are the people who believe fully in the individual and oppose large government and/or extensive regulation of behavior.  Populism by its own definition involves a large group of the populace who, by their mere size, are able to sway society.

The Populists are not the visionaries, but they will adopt a vision and bring it to the fore, in essence concluding the work of the Progressives.  As such they are vulnerable to manipulation by the Progressives who need the support of the masses.   If their vision is adopted by society at large, it will be the Conventionals who will end up supporting the altered institutions.  The mutable Populists will be ever ready to adopt a new vision and, as such, while they may aid in bringing about changes, they will also be the group that will end one vision and help bring about the transition to yet another new society.

Currently, the Populists most frequently identify as MAGA Republicans, yet in many ways the rank-and-file Democrats are working as Populists as their majority supports the various identity groups and causes that the Progressive Left uses to further its Progressive goals for societal change.  Yet, in another way neither group is truly Populist because each supports only a popular majority of one political group.

Interactions

These three approaches and their interaction manifest on all levels from individual to global issues.  While having leanings towards all three, we will primarily exhibit one approach on any given issue. Believing that our approach is the only one is what causes much friction in today’s world. 

Moreover, we may exhibit one approach on one issue while having a different approach on another.  For example, on the environment one might be a Progressive, but on taxation and governmental spending one might be a Conventional or a Populist.

Identifying as any one of these three types of actors is not permanent.  Once a Progressive’s vision becomes the established reality, that individual may then become a Conventional who supports that reality or perhaps will join a new Populist cause that will lead to a transition away from that vision’s reality to begin the establishment of a new vision.

This is where I think we get into trouble.  If one holds a Progressive or Conventional or Populist position on one issue, the tendency is to assume that they hold the same type of approach on all issues and that such an approach is a permanent personality characteristic.  That assumption makes it hard to find common ground on anything.

The strength of the Conventionals

I think that America needs all three types, but it is the Conventionals upon whom we must count to preserve the Democratic Republic form of government that makes America what it is.

America is an ever-evolving country.  Generally its evolution has been slow but positive.  We need the visions of Progressives to push us forward.  But, in the face of those exciting visions, we need the Conventionals to slow us down, make us think and carefully put one foot in front of the other with deliberation as we move forward.  It is the Conventionals who will ensure that we make positive changes without totally upending those institutions that allow us to have visions and to make changes in the first place.

Populism is also exciting.  But as a form of pure democracy, the bottom line is that it is really mob rule.  Again, it is the institutions of our Democratic Republic that have protected the minority from the negatives of a mob rule where the majority gets its way regardless of what that may mean to our institutions or the individuals whom those institutions protect.

We need all three, but sadly today the Conventionals are being lost, crushed by the visions and popular support coming from both sides of the aisle.  The Progressive Left and its Populist supporters would deny and destroy our Constitution along with many of our laws in order to create their Socialist utopia. The Populist Right, in the name of individual rights and popular rule would disband many of our governmental institutions and agencies that, while perhaps currently bloated or mismanaged, are key parts of the Democratic Republic and the America that these Populists claim to hold dear.

If we could only talk with one another, we might find that there are pieces of the Progressive Left agenda that are worth considering while at the same time the voice of the Populist Right needs to be listened to.  And we need the Conventionals to sustain the scaffolding that will hold all this together as America continues to evolve while remaining the America that is the shining star of democracy for the world.

 

MAKING VICTIMS, DESTROYING SOULS

 My New Found Victimhood

Recently I received an email from the university from which I retired and where I still mentor and teach students.  The email was seeking to “gather a list of First Gen faculty” who could be called upon to mentor “First Gen” students.

Being unfamiliar with the term “First Gen”, I did some research and learned that the U.S. Dept. of Education defines a First Gen or First Generation student as:

An individual, neither of whose parents completed a baccalaureate degree;

or

An individual who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one parent and whose supporting parent did not complete a baccalaureate degree.

or

An individual who, prior to the age of 18, did not regularly reside with or receive support from a natural or adoptive parent.

If your parent(s) and/or guardian(s) attended college but do not have a bachelor’s degree (i.e., did not graduate), you are considered to be first-generation.

This is the basic definition used by most colleges and universities, although some further explain that it does not matter about your siblings or any other family members.  That is, one only looks to the parent to determine if someone is First Gen.  Additionally, some schools expand their definition to include individuals whose parents, while having a degree, received that degree from an institution outside the United States.  The Dept. of Education tends to group its discussions of First Generation students with low income or otherwise disadvantaged students.

Think about this.  You could have highly successful parents who, for whatever reason, do not have a college degree, you might be a graduate of an outstanding prep school, have older siblings who are students or graduates of the finest colleges in the country and yet still qualify as a First Gen student and thus be qualified to receive whatever special benefits your college chooses to provide.

When I went to college, I did not consider myself disadvantaged.  I had parents who, though lacking college degrees, were well educated and encouraged education.  I went to good public schools with a high rate of graduates attending college.  My older siblings went to college before me.  Yet, lo and behold, I now discover that I had the disadvantage of being able to label myself as a First Generation student.  Wow.  I too can be a victim.  Actually, I found this thought quite offensive.

Realizing how ridiculous this is, I replied to the email and related my discovery that I am a First Gen.  I further explained that nonetheless, I would not be volunteering for the First Gen mentorship program.  Specifically, I stated, “In my humble opinion, such labels hurt rather than help individual initiative and success.  Obviously, I will not be volunteering as a First Gen mentor though, as you are well aware, I am always ready to help our students as individuals, regardless of whatever label our Woke world might want to place on them.”

I expected to get no response or simply a “thank you for your input” email.  But what I got was an email the total substance of which read “Was that really necessary?” to which I responded with one word:  Yes.   This interchange is not really relevant to the point of this essay, but it does serve to point out that those who are onboard with the Woke practice of labeling and creating political victimhoods are not inclined to want to have a discussion with someone of differing views; indeed, they don’t even want those views to be voiced.

Creating One’s Victimhood “narrative”

On the same day that the above took place I read an article revealing that Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy has fabricated his story of growing up poor, then becoming a successful entrepreneur.  He tells the story that he “didn’t grow up in money” and yet was able to create multimillion dollar companies out of nothing.  It turns out, however, that his parents both held graduate degrees and were highly successful professionals.  Vivek went to an elite prep school and had his own stock portfolio created for him by his parents that was “bringing in hundreds of dollars in dividends before he graduated high school and thousands by the time he attended Harvard, according to his 2002-2004 tax returns.”  Moreover, he accepted a scholarship “he previously said he needed in order to pay for law school.” The year he accepted a $90,000 award for law school, “Ramaswamy reported $2,252,209 in total income, according to his tax returns. He reported a total of $1,173,690 in income in the three years prior.”  You can read the full article here:  Vivek’s Background 

Why would someone as successful and seemingly intelligent as Vivek Ramaswamy create this false rags-to-riches narrative?  Why would he or anyone think that in order to be truly successful, to be “approved” by our culture that they need to first be a victim?  Why would anyone choosing to go into the public arena think that his deceptions would not be found out?  And, on a moral level, why would someone choose to deny who his parents really were and the positive help that they provided as they supported their son in his educational and career journey?  Is that not a slap in the face to his family?

The Consequences of Victim Labeling

Our Woke culture, our world of identity groups/politics, demands that we all be either victim or victimizer.  (I have fun wondering how my new-found victim status due to being a defined First Gen fits with my defined – due to my being White - status as victimizer.  Perhaps I should fall into some schizophrenic fugue.)

But seriously, we are all more than one label.  Each of us is an individual, not a two-dimensional cardboard cutout that can be labeled and then either applauded, condemned, or ignored.  We are all multi-dimensional and those dimensions include both positives and negatives, but all are uniquely ours.  They are what make us the INDIVIDUALS that we are.

If we are nothing more than the labels that some group has decided to place upon us then we lose our individual identity.  Not only who we are, but whom we may become is predetermined for us by someone else who may or more likely may not have our individual best interests in mind. 

If all we can be is what the label says we are, then why have any initiative?  And personal responsibility becomes meaningless because our actions are simply the result of our label.  If we are a victim, then we have our victimhood to blame for anything that goes wrong in our life.  After a fall we need not go through any self-examination or attempt to learn lessons for the future; we need not pull ourselves back up and try to do better or improve things for next time.  Rather, we can simply blame our victimhood and those labeled as our victimizers. 

Labeling is nothing more than a way to control us. People have always to some extent labeled others, and probably always will.  But today we have a political power movement that uses Wokeness to label and divide us and as a result take power over us.   You fit this label so you belong in this box.  No need to try to get out – to improve yourself or to go after your individual vision.  We have decided that this is you and therefore this is whom and what you will be.   And too many simply accept such labeling (or mislabeling) without question or, worse yet, seek it out.

Candidate Ramaswamy fell for the Woke labeling and believed that in order to be “successful candidate” he needed to have an appropriate backstory.  He chose the “rags to riches” narrative.  He became something he is not but that which fits within a particular label.  I chose to question my new label and was chastised for such questioning. 

Sadly, labels, and their subsequent import of victim or victimizer, are a part of our culture today.  We seek out and apply labels to both ourselves and others, and in so doing we diminish our humanity.  Accepting societal labeling grants power over us to those who create the labels and apply them.

The question is, are we playing victim, or is the need for victimhood playing us?  Because in the end, we are nothing but our own victimizers if the need to label, to be a victim, destroys us.  As Sophocles wrote in Antigone, "Who is the Slayer? Who is the Victim? Speak."

We need to answer this question for us, for today, for our civilization and our lives.  But we cannot truly answer it without shedding our need for labels, taking back the power over our being that we have granted to others, and becoming each our own unique individual.