In America, the party system has become a difficult way to really break down and understand where people’s beliefs are based from. Both Republicans and Democrats are now the result of a systematic meshing between different ideologies with a similar style of tactical politics to win seats and positions in Washington. In fact, most of what can be witnessed today is nothing more than politics due to the nature of the game…in other words, the principles are far from view anymore.
If one would like to understand a person’s political views from a more principled perspective, a through study of history as well as readings of important writers, activists, thinkers, and people in positions of influence usually give you all the information you need. It’s relatively easy to breakdown a view of the left and the right by one very simple issue; More government or less government? The left sees government as a means for good in society, while the right sees government as a means of bad, and view it as a necessary evil. The complexity lies with who are the influences to this very general state of mind? What principles did they stand on, and do they have a reasoning behind how they directly view government and society as a whole? If the right views government as necessary evil that needs controlling, why is that; if the government is made up of the people in our society, how is it such an issue? Before getting into the specific influences, the true principle behind the trust and mistrust of government can be simplified even further…in such a way that describes society as a whole.
How? One side trusts people as a whole in society but not in positions of power, while the other trusts those in power with a mistrust of society. Can you guess which is which? of course you can…..but why does this matter? Because from this axiom you can draw a lineage on two different sides that reveals striking flaws among those who are the prominent thinkers of the left versus that of the right. The right, not without their own share of flaws, have still stuck with the rhetoric of smaller government with more people in the hands of the people themselves; this remains consistent with the trust of society, but not of those in power. They base their views on that of founding fathers on the anti-federalist side with Jeffersonian views. They base much of their thought on human action itself, with the virtuous man being the way a true free society should be able to work. perhaps not practically shown, but principally sound.
Where the left veers off is almost from the get-go as the Federalist & Hamiltonian views of mistrust for society have sown the seeds of widespread mistrust between fractions of the population. The northeast intellectuals looked down on the southern farmer as idiots and uncivilized, with a collective thought of power being centralized as a true way of governing. These folks came from much more densely populated areas with greater educational prowess….so naturally their ideas of safety among others on their ivory tower lead to a grotesque set of mistrust for those who did not see things their way. The idea of a strong president, a central bank, and federal-run police force was resemblance of their former countrymen in England….and despite overthrowing King George, the Hamiltonian still saw the temptations of centralized power as the only way to achieve true prosperity for all people. Sure, federal control offers great strength and speed for government to run…but unchecked it is careless and damaging to those under it. Still, these were folk who saw government as a means for good…without ever acknowledging the severity of a moral hazard it poses.
The principle of good government was flawed from the beginning; it assumed responsibility of those in charge, but still contracted itself with its preface of overthrowing a dictator in the process to get there. Hamilton wanted another king in George Washington, because it was a safe option; it was an option he agreed with, and didn’t trust the public to pick out anyone better. He wanted a National Bank, because he wanted less power for the people to control their own money supply….he saw the needs of the government before that of the individual. This to me sets a very serious precedent for the left…..with mistrust of society, a naive acceptance of power, and a government-first mentality; the left really does set itself up for disaster as any and all solutions come from those in power. Those on the right from the start mistrusted those in power; and rightfully so.
This mistrust has been the natural check of those who wished to obtain more power, and also let changes in society be up to the individuals as a whole….not a collective group of ‘special people’. People in power were meant to be stewards, not kings; and this flaw of the left’s kings has moved forward into a messy territory of mismatched principles that is rather hard to understand. The one thing to keep in mind is an old principle known the “Philosophy Kings”, in which the best and brightest were meant to rule society. THAT is what the left ultimately uses as a backbone for their thoughts on a number of issues….and I can prove it. It is a very flawed principle that discourages freedom , and assumes no responsibility to individuals in society. With the mix of collectivist thought in mind, the best and brightest assume control and take any and all competitive thoughts and innovation away from the public and use it for the good of themselves and the government (see Atlas Shrugged for a fictional example). This is all so very far away from true freedom…..and the ending of this rant will show just why one should lean towards true freedom rather than the flawed and sometimes malicious thought-process of the left.
A great starting point for this thought process before the founding Father Alexander Hamilton would be philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes is perhaps the founding father of the “Social Contract”, which generally has been used as an origin that of society’s collective nature of state power over the people. It was a meshing of many great minds at the time who attempted to define societal origins, and where preferences of power lie between those in charge and not. Hobbes saw central control as the only true means of governing, as his magnum opus Leviathan so eloquently states. One needs to only look at the cover of the book to see a giant man with a crown towering over the countryside to get an idea of where his views would lean. While making compelling arguments towards central control, Hobbes’ flaw is the assumption of responsible power…even more so due to his time being under a monarchy…where a King or Queen was only given power based on inheritance and bloodline. For an educated man like Hobbes, this actually makes sense to assume ignorance of the population with his intelligence protected by the state, because his writings took place during the English Civil war. This time of civil unrest and horrific images of countrymen killing one another surely gave Hobbes a valid reason to assume more control over the people by a central body. I do not see Hobbes as an evil man….just misguided. He neglects to see any farther back or forward on the issue of society..in that a central body’s power being the prime culprit. They control human action…simple as that. A gathering of free men or those who wish to be free will always seek to abolish these forms of human control….be it power over money, business, land, speech…all are the same.
Hobbes saw the price for peace being much more valuable than that of true freedom….he was wrong. People thrive under freedom and deteriorate under control…..it becomes a matter of trust. Hobbes’ had a narrow view of society, and sought to merely protect himself and his intellectual positions rather than think of the freedom of others. I highly doubt any of this was malicious or for any piece of the controlling pie….most academics just want safety and security for their lifestyle of reading, writing, and educating. Therefore, individual sovereignty could not exist…as his livelihood relied heavily on the state. Murray Rothbard points this kind of example out as a generality of the intellectual in his work Anatomy of the State, which connects the dots between an individual and national sovereignty. The true flaw again is lack of freedom….can it be justified losing freedom for saftey? Usually not; one who functions on their own tends to understand this, as collective groups in power tend to find ways of making life worse through malicious force or untended consequences.
It’s rather ironic the disconnect today between civil action controlled and economic action…because in the time of Hobbes, it seems the two were not usually separated…and how could they? One’s life was about their work, and therefore no distinction between civil and economic existed being the low man below the hill….who perhaps sought to keep what was theirs at the end of the day rather than send it up to the ivory tower above them on the hill.
The State was hat Hobbes saw as the glue of society…instead his view of “the state’ really was nature itself, which he ultimately feared as civil unrest and anarchy like during the English Civil war. The flaw with that is assuming nature itself is inherently evil; it is not. We as humans have our own version of nature, which goes above animal insists and use logic & reason…which has helped shape trade and prosperity even under the most chaotic of states with true peace involved. The lack of control and stability only comes under that of an unchecked government….for mass misery occurs rather than a social survival of the fittest…another irrational fear that the Left preaches will happen. To assume the bad in people is to discredit all the good people have done on their own as virtuous folk..and ultimately does to teach this to later generations as a result. The gift of charity, civil confederations, and open volunteerism via free will exist when people are taught to be good…a goal religion tries to achieve. One does not need to be a genius to figure this out.
Our next set of influences are former Presidents of this nation….men who help explain the flaw in central control, as their philosophy of great men should actually lead becomes more sophisticated. Not only should our leaders be trusted with the keys to the gate of human action in America…but how the nation as a WHOLE must set an example for the whole world on our version of freedom. See, that is another fallacy of the left; their version of freedom discredits freedom on nearly all fronts, by controlling our way of making a living to offering protectionist policies for both businesses and people they favor when in charge….all while under the guise of being the almighty leader of what they call “the Free World”. A free world to them is a living contradiction of making two wrongs into a right, end’s justify the means, and those in power will always know best. No different that of of Kings and Dictators, those left in power sometimes develop a “God Complex”, in which the view of the smart and powerful ultimately imposes the greater good for all….without any majority oversight or limit for what freedom gets pushed aside for this safety precaution. The left idea of a “living Constitution” always ignores the principle the document stands on rather than their assumption of its age and use…..it always seems the man in charge makes exceptions he feels is best. The “father knows best” mentality stems from the folks mentioned previously and up next….it is antithetical towards freedom.
The three men I will share is Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, and F. Roosevelt. The three are often cited as the greatest presidents due to the turmoils they had to deal with in office…and the presumption of guidance under war seems to be the prevailing reason for their greatness. Does one not see the connection between this and a Hobbes’ Leviathan mentality? The issue of course is the damage caused by these men while in power; society allowed them great power in times of distress and ultimately history ignored their misdeeds of freedom, justice, and responsible use of power.
Lincoln is the first and perhaps the greatest culprit of them all; he was a tyrant elected by the people. His rule in office can be predicated under the “father knows best’ mentality, with all his actions being justified under a role precedent; ‘save the Union’. Like Hobbes, the national sovereignty took precedent over individual freedom….but history seems to ignore the price paid for this sovereignty. In fact, Lincoln is always seen as the ‘great emancipator’ for his role as leader and the removal of the immoral institution of slavery in America. The great emancipator contradicts the ultimate goal of preserving the union…logically these two could not coexist without one being greater than the other…and the union was the main focus. “If i could save the union without freeing a single slave, i would do so”. Truth is, this civil war was about control over the south….slavery or not, the South sought state sovereignty and Lincoln very much disagreed. The secession will forever be debated as morally and constitutionally correct….but note the true start of the war was the North’s march for reclaiming of FEDERAL territory (i.e Fort Sumnter). Why so much loss over a measly government building? Truth is, Lincoln was the aggressor…he saw the situation with no choice of accepting southern succession. His preserving of the union was the prevention of the death of the state…a thing the Left so vehemently wishes to protect at all costs and principles….no matter the contradiction. Preserving really meant keeping DC alive…for without the South’s ports from Wilmington to Houston….the Federal government could not function due to the lack of import tax and tariffs (remember….no income tax existed at this time).
Lincoln was no saint….his ends always justified a means of preserving the Union,…..but his later years were rather malicious. His paranoia of contradiction to his leadership stopped the northern press from operating freely. His negative views of state sovereignty was rather malicious, as we put pressure on Virginia politically to split into the new found state of West Virginia to have another border state for leverage. His suspension of Habeus Corpus was justified for war-time actions…leaving open the ability to arrest northern opposition within from journalists to southern sympathizers…and even state legislators passing laws Lincoln didn’t like (see Arrest of the Maryland Legislature, 1861). Under General Sherman, union soldiers were allowed to burn down homes and farms, rape women, kill them and their children…causing a true loss of life and liberty for innocent civilians in the south….a part of what Lincoln would see as the “Union”. Tactical method…..or just malicious? Both….a clear violation of freedom, humanitarian principles, etc.
Make no mistake, Lincoln was a wise and powerful president….but he was by no means responsible. His true freedom of slaves was well after the Gettysburg address, which permitted border state slavery and essentially null-and-void deceleration of freedom in the South before the war was over. Lincoln’s soon-to-be victory is memorialized at the bloodbath of Gettysburg, where he proclaimed the American nation as the land of the free, and sought to carry on the mission for his (and the future leaders) interpretation of democracy where it does not exist. He was no true passionate freer of slaves….he was a man on a power trip with good speeches and a comforting tone….like any great politician. He gained support for the union abroad at Gettysburg…but set a long-term dangerous precedent in the process; an American mission to be “the leader of the free world”….a leader by force, not by example.
This leads to Wilson and FDR….both presidents during World War I & II, respectively. Both were Lincoln-esque while in office…especially during the wars themselves. To their credit, they tried to avoid the war itself…but did plenty more damage domestically before entering the global wars. Wilson took Lincoln’s idea of an income tax and made it law….which sets the precedent of government right to a portion of one’s earnings….which stinks principally to high-heaven. What’s worse, the creation of the third national bank…or the Federal reserve. Under the guise of progressive protection from big business (another Left point that will be explained later), the central bank was to control the money supply for the whole nation….be a lender of last resort and a controller of inflation.
Both of these claims are bogus….as inflation can only be CAUSED by the Fed via the true definition of inflation (v: the expansion of the money supply in circulation). As Ron Paul wrote, ‘the Fed controls inflation like tobacco companies control smoker’s access to health problems…”. A lender of last resort is also false, as evidence shows the Fed has never had the required funds to adequately be in reserve for this to occur….not top of playing the role of crooked referee picking ‘winners and losers’ in the market with what we are told is ‘educated decisions’. Philosopher Kings, anyone?
FDR is next. Liek Wilson, both were vehement racists (so much for the compassionate liberal, right?) who had a god complex of his own…evidenced by government control of nearly all of the economy, confiscation of gold and people’s paychecks, and his nearly 4 terms in office. He too, lead us to war…and both established America as the nation’s Superpower. Ironically, both wars could have been avoided all together…..though one may have a tough time arguing the threat of imperial and Nazi Germany being too great to avoid. The lasting consequences are evident, as the US became the world’s new empire, set out to solve all problems of the world for those who were not free and democratic. With the help of allied powers Britain and France, the US divided the world into mass amounts of nations with little to no consideration for the sovereignty of the people living there. The Middle East is a living example of poorly managed power by dividing nations based on religious beliefs and picking the winners and losers of who should control that land. Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, etc…..all continue to suffer for America, England, and France’s mistakes after World War II. The idea of the central power knows best is what justified those actions…..and is the running mistakes the Left still makes by keeping with that philosophical position.
The writing thus far has been long…but still full of examples as to the Fallacy of the Left’s thought process.. If the end’s truly justified the means, the national sovereignty should prevail over the individual, and the nature of humans needs protection from itself amid threats of chaos……how is it all of this pain and misery occurs? Principally, the defense of the State by the ignorance of the people is a miserable position to take, because these examples show just how mixed up one can get with the defense of the state. Power corrupts, and the idea of true freedom becomes more and more of a far off dream as the transition from monarchy to democratic republic still held true freedom in check. Is true freedom merely chaotic anarchy, or a way to prosperity? We wil never know, because society has yet to achieve this goal. To freedom’s credit, the principle of power corrupts is very much true….freedom & virtuous people result in prosperity is a brighter outlook, as it gives people self-hope to better each other. Belief in the individual is the only way this can be truly achieved, with the merits of one’s work and actions being judged by society rather than their sexual preferences, race, gender, or religious beliefs. Both the left and right see this as an end goal….the difference being how to get there.
The other major difference, that has been alluded to, is that of economic freedom. The mistake of separating the two is false and lead to poor consequences, as economics is no more than human action….same as the liberties of the civil umbrella. True freedom permits a person to be gay, straight, christian, Muslim or atheist, and from birth a god-given right to live their life the way they see fit without loss of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that is indeed true, how is the control of one’s work and livelihood an exception? A true free society is a web of choices with the law of human nature as the restrictions that last….this nature always prevails for those who are hard workers, are virtuous, and open for trade to all. Trade is a key component to society….it existed well before government ever did. Therefore, the ideas of a commerce department to regulate trade, a central bank to determine value of money, and an assortment of other tools to stifle true free trade. A sophisticated true of how an economy works with no governance to blurr the lines is the story of Robinson Crusoe..who formed his own economy trapped on an island by himself with its native inhabitants. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Crusoe_economy). That is evidence of a working economy…no giant structure on a hill controlling it whatsoever.
How is it that this split on economics exist? Well remember, the Left functions on the axiom that human nature is bad…and needs to be centrally controlled. Even if a part of that nature is good, it still has to be controlled by someone else in order for it to either a) exist b) prosper properly c) prevent harm to others. If economics is no different than civility,…than the same parameters exist….the freedom must be given permission by the government….not by the people for the government to protect. That is a key distinction…because we all get duped into thinking the government is to protect us from ourselves, such as murder, discrimination, rape, theft, and all in between. But how is it possible without being the issuer of rights and freedoms in the first place? If the axiom of government control supersedes individual rights…than it cannot be possible to form a protection of rights by all if the government is left out of the equation. by assuming the benefit of the doubt for government, the society in question cannot have the rights they see as god-given because the government ultimately has to be the gatekeeper of the rights….rights which can become cannon-fodder at any instant in the name of the State.
How is this acceptable to us logically or morally? One’s rights belong with the individuals themselves, and hardline such as the Bill of Rights need to be taken on face-value in order to balance the construction of power from any source whatsoever. The truth is the government was the villain in the mind of the Bill of Rights….they are the ones who must be chained down, not the people. Their is one very simple reason for this…the reason why it exists only to limit government and not the people themselves; choice. Choice is what we in society have to reject tyranny from a bad boss, a violent lover, a bad accountant, or the way we choose to live or lives. Choice is inherit with human nature….and that is why choice is divided between protected and suppressed by the right and left, respectively. One who controls rights assumes all are subject to interpretation…as is evident by long-term societal evidence over time under that axiom. A protector of true liberty makes no bias for what rights need protection….because they see no distinction between them. With a moral line of deprive no-one of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness…..a world of freedom is open to obtain and cherish. Choice is what makes a distinction between a body of people in a government versus a corporation; you can make an upfront choice to deny service to and from the corporation, where government holds a social contract over the heads of the people with services that are next to impossible to deny. Therefore, in human nature, a true monopoly is impossible…as one can always have the choice to go outside of the monopoly for service. Only through government can a monopoly exist, as government is the epitome of a Monopoly.
Well the final influences are what truly make the Left vulnerable at the base of the house….for the foundation has been a selected set of pillars that are being knocked down one by one with living contradictions to back-up principle. If Hobbes defines the basis of thought for our purposes, and our former leaders Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR abused it….the next few authors, activists and intellectuals just make a mockery of it through grave contradictions of thought. Folks of a more 20th century left saw war as a moral crime, and rightfully so; they had selected views of government as bad in the ways of war, as well as discriminatory or permissive of evil in society. They only differ from Hobbes in outright examples of government misdeeds….but still don’t differ from the axiom of government control…for within the belief of national sovereignty has proven to be government as the provider of all rights. They know best…therefore they must make all rules, regulations, and influences.
Many examples of this kind of thought exist among an assortment of intellectuals up to today….it almost seems impossible to pick a starting point. Just for kicks, lets knock the ever-popular Howard Zinn; the man who wrote “The People’s History of the United States.” Much like me, Zinn cherry-picked data throughout history to make is point throughout the whole book; Corporations are evil. More specifically, capitalism is the root cause of all problems in the United States history from Columbus’ discovery of America up to today. Zinn certainly compiled plenty of evidence to make his point…but he left vulnerable his reasoning to interpretation. Remember, the Left always assumes government needs control….therefore his solution would appear (and factually was) more government control. Zinn was an outspoken socialist advocate…who saw it as the appropriate direction for America over the evils of capitalism.
True capitalism, by its very nature, its human nature and freedom. Socialism is the opposite; it is government control of human nature, by picking and choosing what is good and what is not. Zinn’s assumption was likely that human nature could not sort out human flaws and imbalances correctly; therefore it would be safe to say Zinn had an underlying mistrust for people. That stays consistent with the left’s axiom, and helps me slam home the point I wish to make; America has never had true capitalism. Nearly all misery Zinn cites is an example of corporatism, or a government controlled version of capitalism. Issues of mass suffering and despair get confused with the consequences of a free market’s function versus government’s choices and decisions….most notably with recessions. Both can cause mass suffering in society…but only the free market has proven successful in the path to prosperity after a recession versus governments solutions. I can agree with Zinn and co. that capitalism offers mass misery…but this indicative of human nature. The naive thought it can be controlled is where the Left makes its mistake…and shows time and time again the State’s solutions are responsible for the great quality and quantity of misery. Examples of pure capitalism’s misery is few and far between…with many more micro-examples than large-spread ones.
In short, Zinn’s views on capitalism can only be blamed on government itself…the very entity he wishes to fix it. More Oil to the fire never works. All the examples he offers are that of government meddling, and always makes a misplaced blame of capitalism with what should be corporatism. On a simple level, the choices people in power make, when unchecked, make messes….more messes than good solutions. People can be trusted…..just not with power. That is the paradox we must solve. Government certainly cannot offer this for the nature of its existence is people in power…and with the Left’s view of power of the state over individual freedom, it simply is not possible. All that can result is good intentions with power gone horribly wrong….or the few examples of malicious use within good intentions.
my final example is that of Saul Alinsky….the brainchild behind the modern community organization via Rules for Radicals. Lately this has been brought out of the netherworld and into the spotlight due to the current administrations tactics and even its foundations. Much of what the current Left associates with is these movements, for the name of freedom…..but as we well know, that is merely lip-service. They assume freedom can only be government-provided, and will always take safety over what true freedom is. So when people rally for the worker’s right of better pay in the meat-packing district of Chicago, they used Alinsky’s tactics to gain their desired goal. The trouble with this the malicious way of doing so; villianize at all costs. These folks see themselves as radicals and revolutionaries….much like the image of Che Guevara when he helped overthrow control of Cuba (though Che was a violent man who killed many for his goal…Alinsky and his ilk certainly are not). they used any means necessary to gain control…and inevitably gaining a piece of the pie in the process via the government. Let me be more specific; the use of government to address grievances of both capitalism and even government itself has time and time again led to bad consequences due to the nature of the organization. Alinsky was a genius….and he used what he knew about human nature to divide and conquer. The end goal always the priority, regardless of what gets stepped on or destroyed in the way. The principle Alinsky made is much like a virus, it attacks everything in sight as if it was villain #1….even if the villain was Alinskyism itself. The process could not exist without a villain. As Writer Michael Walsh writes,
““Alinsky rode into town on a one-trick pony that the Left has since turned into its warhorse: Agitate one side’s grievances, and appeal to another side’s decency and gullibility in order to provoke the establishment, whose reaction will unite the other two. Then the community organizer charges in on his nag-turned-steed and proceeds to set the rot in motion under the banner of ‘progress’.”
Want proof? look at any recent mass protest, right or left; any smart organizer uses some form of this method to accomplish it’s goal. Heck the most recent ‘march against Monsanto’ is a sure-fire example of it in 2013…and most will buy into it by seeing how devilishly easy it is to target the blame all on corporation Monsanto.
““Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
Cheap shot? Not really, if you focus beyond the name of Satan himself; Satan is the ideology of trickery, deceit, and malice in actions to achieve one’s desires….an ode to Machiavelli himself. The End’s always justified the means for Satan. To call Saul and State-protectors followers of Satan is quite illogical and in poor taste….but my previous mention of virtuous people should be given some merit, as an ode for Satan should be a dead giveaway for a lack of responsibility in one’s actions; a key component to virtuous action. You cannot regulate or control virtue, it is always a choice. Therefore one would hopefully choose to be virtuous given the empirical evidence and logical soundness it can offer.
Hopefully the evidence shows reasons why one would wish to avoid the axiom of control over freedom. The general view of the left always leads back to this axiom…it is the one unifying principle they have leaned on since perhaps the crossing of Gold Speech, when the left was associated by its name today. The left’s more appropriate name should be Statists, at it encompasses folks on the ‘right’ side of the isle like John McCain and others who rarely differ from this axiom. Statists wish to assign rights to groups like gays, workers, African Americans, immigrants…all those who traditionally get the short end of the stick. They cannot deny these rights offered are bias, as it is within the same mindset as the discrimination they wish to oppose. They understand but refuse to acknowledge the consequences of these actions, by which they deprive liberty from others…many and most of whom are good people. Their has to be a better way….a way that offers a truwe path to equality, instead of a system of dependancy with no true end in sight (see Justice O’Connor’s decision in Grutter v Bollinger, where she admits to the law being bunk….yet offers no true end time for its use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger)
Those for true, or as close to true freedom as possible were once known as classical liberals…and has since changed to Libertarianism. They see the results of control as consequential of unforseen consequences, and note good intentions with a position of power tend to backfire more than become successful.
I advocate for the principle of Individual liberty without the banner of political leaning, in hopes it will sway those who read to the direction of a goal for society to be freer, more prosperous, and happier. True freedom has yet to be tried; so why not strive for it rather than socialism. After all, Socialism has more on its death count than GMOs! (Austin Peterson).