Persuasion didn't work -- the Statist route

The Left of the 60s was a different Left than we see today, although there are signs that today's far Left is becoming anti-establishment -- their reasons are probabaly as delusional as before. The 20th century saw capitalism succeed in ways no one, especially Marx and the early socialists, expected. Social democracy in Europe was much like the modern liberal movement in America -- they both realized that orthodox socialism doesn't achieve what it first claimed as goals. There was the problem of economic calculation when the State owned the means of production, but that was just one of the problems. The ruling proletariat was a delusion. Realizing the failure of orthodox socialism, reformists such as Eduard Bernstein decided that capitalism wasn't so bad after all -- it just had to be managed.

But managed capitalism brought us the Great Depression, contrary to the claims that the Great Depression was caused by a free market. America has never had a free market, nor has any other country. Relatively speaking, before the turn of the 20th century, America had the closest thing to a free market the world has known. After FDR's disastrous experiments, when the economy recovered, capitalism became relatively free once again for a couple of decades, creating enormous wealth. So much wealth was created that the New Left in the sixties believed that abundance would enable most people, especially in America, to play rather than work. The Leftists philosophers talked of productivity gains that allowed one person to do what before took 100 people. The idea that predicted the age of creative leisure wasn't well-formed.

It seemed to those on the Left that capitalism had created a form of repression, as advertising firms led people to a materialist quest which left them one-dimensional, as Herbert Marcuse wrote about during the sixties. Many in sixties saw a new age arising in which humans would be liberated from the rat race, and the New Left despised the liberal and conservative establishment, seeing government and giant corporations colluding to maintain conformity and obedience to the system. The military/industrial complex was seen as a government monster out of control, and Viet Nam was the proof. The New left attempted to form a coalition to change the world in the streets, but Kent State ended the protests with students being shot down by national guards. People today can't imagine this happening, but it did. After the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X, Watergate -- after Woodstock and Kent State, the Left decided that they would have to work within the State to gain power and make the changes they sought.

The seventies proved that perpetual abundance wasn't yet a reality. There was much disillusionment during the seventies. In the eighties the Age of Reagan and Thatcher was proclaimed, and the State was rhetorically beaten back, although interventionist government grew in size and power. Modern liberals and Leftists moved past their divisions and began creating a new coalition. In the 60s, when the New Left called on the Third World and the poor minorities to join them, they were asking poor people to become anti-materialistic. Michael Harrington writes about this in the last book he wrote. Needless to say, those who were struggling to make material gains didn't respond so well to young, priveleged intellectuals asking them to deny materialism and join their humanistic crusade for concepts. Poor people wanted jobs and money, not creative freedom -- they were hungry not repressed by material possessions.

The coalition on the Left that formed through the eighties and nineties and now into the 21st century promised something different. They promised good union jobs, a generous welfare State, redistribution of wealth, power through government interventions, social justice, and some even talked about reparations. The dream of working less, or not at all, subsidized by the State, has surived, but the Left doesn't lead with this dream. With real unemployment at around 20% and the national debt over 16 trillion it would seem insane to promote creative play over work. The Left doesn't talk as much about the repression of material abundance -- they talk about unfairness regarding the 1% with their underserved wealth. The Left doesn't protest the military/industrial complex, unless Republicans control government, because they know that the Stae can maintain power only through overseas interventions that provides us with a sense of security and national pride.

Minorities were terribly fooled this time by the Left. When the Left told minorities straight up what they proposed, minorities didn't respond, but when the power of government intervention was shown as the path to fairness and equality, minorities signed on and became permanent Democrats. This hasn't worked out so well for minorities. Welfare has become a corrupt and corrupting system -- unions are on the decline, except government unions, but they can't last because of our debt problem and they're unreasonable demands for more and more when government has less and less. The Left forgot the part of reality that's dynamic, and minorities haven't kept up with the rapid changes, because the State has not kept up. Government run education is not suitable for poor minorities to gain the knowledge necessary to succeed in the 21st century economy. Welfare has torn families apart, with young black males lacking adult male guidance, leaving them susceptible to the influence of criminal elements who become local heroes because they flash wads of money made off sold drugs which are killing those completely lost in the system.

When those who understand the generative principles of a free market and limited government bring up the failures of our statist system, we're marginalized as extremists, racists and other names to demonize us and remove the threat to State power. Supporting State power has now become an intellectually empty exercise to maintain power for the sake of power, as more and more Americans never gain the skills to thrive in the market. Minorities need good educations and skills to fill the jobs of the 21st century. We can talk about social justice and racist history all day long, but it won't help young men and women get jobs which pay a good wage so that they can live with dignity and pursue happiness with equal gusto. Statism, the Left's route to transform capitalism into a fully-managed wealth-creation source to subsidize their tired movement which long ago lost any grand vision it once had, is killing the economy. Will the New Republicans do any better? Will limited government representatives gain enough power to make major changes and limit the power of government, thus whittling the State down to size? I don't know, but minorities ought to pick a new coalition to escape the statist system and prosper in a free market -- it's the only way out.

The Withering State

This coming month I will write less about current political issues and more about the overarcing concerns that a few in politics have finally recognized as critical to our future. Since at least the 60s, but it goes futher back for intellectuals, there has been constant denigration of ideology. In the political realm, if someone is true to an ideology they are considered an extremist, small-minded, foolish, stubborn, unwilling to pragmatically compromise and play the political game. If a politician will not go against principles at times, it's tough to survive in Washington DC, because the State isn't concerned with principles -- the political elite who benefit from a powerful State are concerned with the expansion of power, management and control.

Many good reasons have been given for a powerful State which sometimes, according to pragmatic statists, has to push government beyond the Constitution, because if the Constitution had been obeyed all along our history, there would be no powerful State. Statists will have us believe that without a powerful, intervening State machine supported by a government which has a monopoly on coercion, we'd have no safety net and common welfare would go unattended. Under a limited governmen there would be a minimal government responsible for rights protection, border defense and settling disputes in court. If we had obeyed the Constitution all along, border issues would likely be less of a concern. For one thing it's doubtful we'd have the War on Drugs and the problems we face on the Mexican border. We would likely not have intervened in European wars and the mideast, so we most likely would not be fighting a War on Terror. This is all speculation, but no one can deny that America would be much different had we abided by a limited government from the beginning. What about the safety net under a limited government? This will be one of the main issues I address.

This next month I will try to show how a powerful State which constantly expands power will either destroy the nation or we'll live in slow decline with our standard of living falling significantly across the board. Those who benefit will be relatively few, and they will exist in the political realm which will completely manage and control the economy. We're moving toward an American form of social democracy, as we have been been since FDR, but it's really a modern fascism. It seems funny to say we're moving toward a political/economic arrangement over a period of 80 years, but if we look at Rome's decline, or Great Britain's decline, we see American history since the 20th century as it is over what seems to us as a long time, but historically is a month or so, if that. The big question now is whether Americans will allow this to happen, and, if Americans resist, can they prevent it from happening. I will start thinking about an America with a different type of "state", one that has nothing to do with a few dominating the many. The title says withering, but for now only the concept is withering.

Obama supporters are ludicrous

For months now I've heard Obama supporters/defenders talk about how hyperbolic the claims are from the Right regarding Obama the Leftwing radical. For instance, I hear Obama supporters, in response to gun control issues, make the case that Obama has done nothing to threaten the second amendment. Obama supporters, when the issue of taxes arises, claim Obama has cut taxes, and that if he raises taxes it will be only a small amount equivalent to the Clinton years. When the question of liberal anti-military, dovishness comes up, Obama supporters foam at the mouth proclaiming the toughness shown by Obama, the Great Warrior Chief, as he shot bin Laden in the eye and has killed one terrorist after another with precision drones. When critics on the Right attack Obama's welfare expansion, Obama supporters talk about state services which have been cut and how America's welfare state is meager compared to Sweden and Denmark. When the religious Right complains about Obama's anti-Christian attitude, Obama supporters assure us that he is a true Christian who believes in a personal God who can affect our lives. You would think that the Left has adopted conservative principles and is making the case that Obama is the true conservative in the race for President. When proponents for oil drilling castigate Obama for creating obstacles to oil drilling, Obama's minions show how oil drilling is increasing as they beam with pride. Obama supporters support these claims of his conservative prowess with gusto.

This is either a transformation that no one expected -- Obama goes from Progressive/Social Democrat to Super Conservative -- or it's a ploy to deflect criticism regarding Obama's Leftist views. The first option is incredible, so let's look at the second option: are Obama supporters conceding that conservative principles are superior? Why would Obama's supporters paint him as a conservative unless they think that the principles of social democracy are rejected by Americans? The funny thing is that at times Obama pulls off the mask and shows the public exactly who he is and what he supports, but then when he's criticized for proposing the principles of social democracy, the operatives and pundits, and Obama himself, quickly deny the Leftist views and go back to presenting conservative accomplishments. It's ludicrous. What do the honest Leftists think about this? I don't hear any loud, influential voices calling out Obama and his supporters. Why would the true Left support Obama if he thinks he has to play Super Conservative? Is the Left completely cynical politically? Obama has chosen to publically reject a full embrace of social democracy because he doesn't think he will be re-elected if he's honest, so we will have to put up with this ludicrous charade a little while longer. Is it really fooling anyone? Really?

Obama: Fortunate and Unfortunate

It's fortunate that a barrier was broken and Barack Obama became America's first black President. This was truly historical, and the beginning showed promise. Unfortunately, Obama, the individual, failed to rise to the occasion, and it's now obvious that Obama was marketed into the office. This is not a reflection on his race, but it's a reflection on how lost the Democratic Party has become. Regardless of the color of the President's skin, any President who embraced social democracy at this point in the progression of Leftist policies in America would fail. Obama didn't rise above the failure of statism.

As I've written lately, there are no liberals in the Democratic Party, at least none that are taking a stand for liberalism against social democracy. For decades the Democratic Party has been a mixture of base power-mongering and a statist enemy of limited government and free market principles. The Democratic Party has followed the curious, European mixture of socialsim and fascism which developed over the course of two world wars, and it has rejected orthodox socialism in favor of the Third Way which utilizes capitalism, but only as a tool to create dominating State power over the economy. the Democratic Party has used capitalism to fund a welfare/warfare State that is growing more powerful each year, regardless of which party is in power. The Republican Party has been little more than Democratic Party lite. Because the US public wouldn't accept social democracy in one grand transition, it was a gradual transition, with FDR and LBJ speeding up the transition and taking large steps during periods of urgency.

Obama wants to surpass FDR and LBJ, but the damage done by decades of social democracy has taken its toll, and Obama happens to be President. Obama and his team aren't taking this trick of fate lightly -- they are fighting with all they have to get Obama re-elected so the agenda can be advanced in large measures so that Obama can take his place with FDR and LBJ, but the alignment of the stars is off. Obama hasn't risen because the baseness of social democracy has become apparent. At its foundation, social democracy is only a way for statists to manage the wealth of America, to redistribute, buy votes and to finally write enough regulations through finance, healthcare and environmental protection to gain complete control over the market and capitalists in the market.

Obama has been revealed as a dishonest politician who believes in his charisma enough to think he has control over the hearts and minds of most Americans -- he obviously believes that Americans will take what he says as truth. Media support this narrative, this fiction, but, alas, it's not working. Americans wanted Obama to do good because they liked him -- the individual -- and, secondarily, they wanted a black President to succeed. However, Obama has failed, because his ideology has failed -- it failed years ago, but America is such a strong country economically, it's taken a lot of abuse to finally knock it down -- but, it's been knocked down. Now, Americans want to get back up and start working and producing wealth again. Obama and the Democratic Party are standing in the way. It's unfortunate.

Glenn Beck on Obama

Beck said something this morning that's right on target. If the country elects Obama again, they'll get exactly what they deserve. I've written that I believe the American people are getting smarter due to better information sources which have effectively done an end run on traditional media which basically support the Democratic Party line.

Let's stop something right now that prevents many people from fully criticizing Obama -- Obama's threat to the nation has nothing to do with his skin color, so all criticism has to be taken in the context of Obama's political ideas, policies and his words which have shown us what his agenda entails. Obama is the prototypical social democrat/Progressive, and it's not Obama alone who is the problem -- it's the entire Democratic Party and over half the Republican Party. The 2012 election is not about Obama -- it's about electing enough supporters of limited government and a free market to roll back the Progressive gains made in healthcare and finances and regulations in general that have crippled our economy and created long term high unemployment.

Obama is only part of the problem, but his win or loss signifies in which direction the country wants to go. If Obama wins, the hope that people like myself have, that limits to power are forthcoming and statism is dying, will be dashed, but those who re-elect Obama and insist on the statist direction will pay for their ignorance.