The Socialist Drift
A more explicit title might be the populist drift, but is there a difference? Populism is the hype of
returning power to “the people”, but look at the populists who have gained power, and look at their
message. For “the people” to have more power always seems to mean more power to the populist
government, and that is socialism, which always results in more government control, restriction on
private business and ultimately, less efficiency, a weaker economy and less freedom for the people who
were supposed to have gained more power. Most populism is driven by egotistical, power hungry
demigods who use elections to gain their own selfish ends. Look at the history: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini,
Chavez, Mugabe, Morales, Putin; how many more do we need before we begin to see the drift?
Does the same apply to us? Beginning with Andrew Jackson, followed by Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon
Johnson our democracy has become steadily more democratic, and populist, for which we can only
count on our vaunted separation of powers and checks and balances to control.
Let’s jump ahead to a critique voiced in The Future of Freedom (Fareed Zakaria):
What does it all mean? I suddenly put into perspective for myself while reading World War IV (Norman
Podhoretz), at least as it related to our foreign policy – and there by extension, for me – to the drift I am
trying to address. Podhoretz’ discussion centered on the differences between the realist “school” and
the broader responsibility “school” of foreign policy. The realist school asserts that the best we can do
is support whatever regimes maintain order in the world and then rely on diplomacy. The broader
responsibility school accepts that we have a broader responsibility to defend freedom throughout the
world. As a defender of the middle ground I think both of those extremes are unrealistic. Teddy
Roosevelt said speak softly and carry a big stick; that, it seems (though simplistic) comes closer.
The problem with accepting responsibility for defending freedom throughout the world is two-fold: we
don’t have the resources to do it and the American public won’t support it. The problem with diplomacy is
that for the most part it doesn’t work.
Resources and will. Why not? Lots of reasons: selfishness is one (ours, but theirs too), and lack of
resolve on our part; but yet another is trying to police the world doesn’t work either. Other cultures are
not going to change because we think we have a better suggestion for them; it doesn’t work that way.
They are going to do what they do because that is their way – send money, but don’t tell us what to do.
Oh, and help us; we need help, meaning send money. This will ultimately become a problem because
they do want what we have, and want to work towards it – as long as it suits them, and in the process
world trade is developing. That’s good for us, but when it goes south we get hurt because we come to
rely upon it. So a world in our image is in our interest, and probably theirs too, but they are as selfish as
we and they want it their own way. In the case of Arabs that means constant squabble, with violence, if
not always for sure now. So we are going to sacrifice our world treasure to watch them blow it? Can you
blame us for getting tired of trying? Even though, in the long run we will hurt because world markets R US
and we need them. The long run is not the strong suit of a democratic republic.
Only that’s only the half of it. The other half is power. He with power feels he can make he who is
without power do what he wants him to do, and he can up to a point. That point is when you try to go in
and run his country – regardless of his culture. Historically that has been successful for only a short
time before the resistance begins to develop. The culture resists and it is often more common for the
conqueror to be subsumed by the culture of the conquered – wait ‘em out.
Then there is diplomacy. Talk is fine, as long as it is in someone's (whoever’s) interest to talk. And
when weak one may even agree to do or accept something that is less than in their interest, whether or
not following it is actually intended. When strong? Screw ‘em. That’s the way diplomacy works more
often than not. But, hey, it’s a growth industry in which many, many in our world stand to gain; great sums
of money are spent on talking and its trappings and many, many of the chattering class build careers
upon it. So let’s schedule talks; what’s to lose? Besides, if the other side wants it bad enough they’ll pay,
and in the meantime leave you alone. Win-win! In the end it’s mostly self serving – but terribly devious –
and worse, as we insist on believing everything that diplomat negotiators say. How is it we have come to
brand politicians liars and yet believe every word of diplomats? Treaties last only so long as they are in
the interest of their signatories, and many developing countries (particularly Arab) use them as
strategies to obfuscate: stupid Westerners will actually trust in them! But the vast and growing
resources of the community of international diplomatic administrators (particularly UN) are in full
support, with the help of our own “intellectual elite.”
So what’s the answer? The same as it has always been: understand the power of self interest. Talk
when there are no other options, threatening, sanctioning – if we can get away with it – cajoling,
demanding, pushing and stone-walling – but never, ever really believing in incorruptible veracity of
diplomatic negotiators. Violence is always the last option, but it must be an option because without it no
amount of diplomacy will ever succeed: speak softly, but carry a big stick. And that option must be a
serious and believable one; none (particularly Arab cultures) really believe in anything not backed by
force. It does not entail walking in and handing out candy bars and asking for love and devotion. In fact
Eisenhower’s admonition to never get involved in a ground war in Asia is still valid, particularly today
when cultural guerrilla warfare has been brought to high art. Indigenous zealots with funding can cause
incredible damage forever with meager assets, until the indigenous population tires of it and does
something about it. Which, incidentally, they have a difficult time doing when a dictator hires half the
population to terrorize the other half. And when we go in and try to help? They all turn on us.
Our problem is we live in a fantasy world where everyone thinks just like us and wants to live the way
we live, and as soon as given a chance, will, embracing freedom, rights, rule of law and respect of
property. That’s not the real world; the world we live in is one of brutal power struggling self interest, and
whoever is out of power, and can, will do whatever they can to throw out those in power and take it for
themselves - and corruption. And any (criminals, terrorists) that can will use rule of law and innocent-
until-proven-guilty against anyone naive enough to attempt to use it with them; it works.
But, we cry, we have met the people and they are good, peaceful and sincere. They are not like that.
Perhaps they are not, but many to whom they listen are, the elites who lead them and tell them what they
are to know. And here is the great dichotomy: relations among men are not as individuals just trying to
get along, but as decreed by the elites by whom they are led, and what they know is the continual flow of
propaganda that washes over them. Mob rule is still alive and well and exists just under every surface.
Nor are we immune, and we should never forget it.
To us such judgment seems harsh, as we feel it is not keeping with our principles, even though one
cannot help but wonder how strong those principles are anymore in an environment where a constant
stream of immigrants who do not subscribe to them flood in. Only immigrants? There is a cruel and
growing undercurrent in our own culture that has no intention of turning the other cheek and submitting –
especially when their own selfish interests are involved, though they might seldom admit it. As the crush
of “modernity” increases, there seems to be more and more willingness to employ the very principles
that made our culture what it is as weapons to defeat them.
Both extremes are wrong: unquestioning offense and bland diplomacy. We cannot be continually
rushing in and violently forcing others to accept our cultural mores or allow them to rush in and disrupt
ours. Nor can we docilely stand around as professional “diplomats” (lawyers?) talk incessantly while
excusing and defending instigators of disruption. Benevolence and compassion only work when they are
respected, and backed by resolve, often aggressive resolve.
Not overlooking domestic policy, I think it suffers from the same kind of dualistic approach: Social
Security, Medicare, welfare, education, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and surely more. The
big problem dealing with all of them is not lack of a middle ground, but unwillingness to search for it and
support unpopular policies. Why? Because our elites don't want to upset anyone and lose votes - and
therefore power. I'll not take the time to go into the details of each, even if I were qualified to do so. But
Social Security is a good example; had adjustment been made twenty years ago when the need was
recognized, much of the problem would no longer exist. Just as with the extreme positions dealing with
foreign policy, realism - true realism, for the sake of what's best for the country in the long run, is
desperately needed. Where is it? Are our leadership elites any longer capable of addressing it? Do they
even want to? Or is it all about them and their power? Again, the long run is not the strong suit of a
democratic republic
I used to have very narrow views concerning Social Security and Medicare, but they are here and they
are not going to go away. In fact people can no longer survive - our nation can longer survive - without
help in both retirement and medical coverage; we flat live too long. We have many examples to look at
from other countries that have attempted it - with big problems associated with their solutions. Do we
analyze them? And try to see what's good and what's not? If we do it's not evident. And why not?
Political power struggle, not to overlook arrogance. How pathetic is that?
Having said all that I doubt that we are prepared to do what we must do. Most of our population lives in a
world of naïve – and secure – complacent, ignorant fantasy, and are quite happy to do so as sound bites
of “correct” propaganda continually spewed by our “intellectual” elite wash over them. Only when our
bubble bursts and our comfortable way of life is threatened will we (they, actually – the intellectual elite
leadership) awaken to the reality of it all, and then it will be late – not too late; we will survive, but through
endurance of pain and suffering – at least pain and suffering compared to that with which we have come
to expect and demand. Our way of life does not fare well when constant improvement turns to decline,
and where competing for continually growing resources turns to being forced to share dwindling
resources. Then we will cry, why didn’t someone warn us? Only those that so cry will not be the ones
that caused the decline, for we will be long gone – and they who remain will rightfully damn us for our
ignorance.
The sad part is that all are not equally guilty; though we must all share guilt of allowing those who lead
us astray for their own selfish purposes to get away with it. We of the vast silent middle ground, we who
listen to their propaganda and follow their selfish – and often ignorant – lead are guilty nonetheless,
through omission if not commission. Yet we continue to drift, and sink, and listen, ignorant and
complacent, to the siren calls of socialist expectancy. “He” cannot defeat us; we defeat ourselves.
Hopefully we will awaken before selfish, dependent, complacency yields to the inevitable brutal
strongman, as has so often happened elsewhere in the past – and is occurring throughout the rest of the
world as we sleep - strongmen who quite often these days gained their positions through democratic
elections.
* Thomas Sowell essay entitled “Crime and Rhetoric”, dated October 17-2007: it was precisely the rise to
power in the 1960s (in the courts as well as in politics) of those who believed that "injustices and
inequities" were the causes of crime which marked a de-emphasis on law enforcement and
imprisonment — and marked one of the most dramatic increases in crime in our history. Having
declined for decades on end, the murder rate suddenly doubled between 1961 and 1974. The rate at
which citizens became victims of violent crimes in general tripled.
A more explicit title might be the populist drift, but is there a difference? Populism is the hype of
returning power to “the people”, but look at the populists who have gained power, and look at their
message. For “the people” to have more power always seems to mean more power to the populist
government, and that is socialism, which always results in more government control, restriction on
private business and ultimately, less efficiency, a weaker economy and less freedom for the people who
were supposed to have gained more power. Most populism is driven by egotistical, power hungry
demigods who use elections to gain their own selfish ends. Look at the history: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini,
Chavez, Mugabe, Morales, Putin; how many more do we need before we begin to see the drift?
Does the same apply to us? Beginning with Andrew Jackson, followed by Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon
Johnson our democracy has become steadily more democratic, and populist, for which we can only
count on our vaunted separation of powers and checks and balances to control.
- The Age of Jackson (Arthur Schlessinger): “The common man, too long thwarted
By official indifference, had to be given a sense that the government was in truth the people’s
government. Jackson’s answer was shrewd and swift: a redistribution of federal offices (the
‘spoils system’).”
- The Forgotten Man (Amity Shaes): “The contest now was not Democrat versus Republican but
rather the classical republic versus the classical democracy. Government was less a
representative republic than it had once been, more directly controlled by the people. The change
had started back in the 1910s with the constitutional amendment to permit the electorate to pick
senators directly, rather than through their state legislatures. Suffrage for women had
accelerated it. And the Depression had accelerated it again – people who might not have had an
interest in government before now found that hunger concentrated their minds. Instead of asking
what government was doing on behalf of the general welfare, voters were asking in a very
democratic way what Roosevelt was doing for them…Roosevelt was clear about it. As he put in
his second inaugural address, he sought “unimagined power.”
- The Years of Lyndon Johnson - Means of Ascent (Robert A. Caro): “His ‘War on Poverty’ was not
crowned with triumph like his war on prejudice*. Many of the laws he rushed through Congress in
such unprecedented numbers – in a frenzy of legislation – as if, it sometimes seemed, he equated
speed and quantity with accomplishment, were inadequately thought through, flawed,
contradictory, not infrequently exacerbating, at immense cost, the evils they were intended to
correct. But his very declaration of war was a reminder – as was his overall concept of a ‘Great
Society’ – of government’s responsibility to do more than stand idly by without at least attempting
to strike blows against ignorance, disease and want.”
Let’s jump ahead to a critique voiced in The Future of Freedom (Fareed Zakaria):
- “Simply put, most Americans have lost faith in their democracy. If you examine what lies
underneath America’s disquiet, you will find that the troubles of American democracy are similar
to those being experienced by countries across the globe. The democratic wave has hit American
hard, perhaps harder than any other Western country. Founded as a republic that believed in a
balance between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority – America is increasingly
embracing a simple-minded populism that values popularity and openness as the key measures
of legitimacy. This ideology has necessitated the destruction of old institutions, the undermining
of traditional authority, and the triumph of organized interest groups, all in the name of 'the
people.' The result is a deep imbalance in the American system, more democracy but less liberty.”
What does it all mean? I suddenly put into perspective for myself while reading World War IV (Norman
Podhoretz), at least as it related to our foreign policy – and there by extension, for me – to the drift I am
trying to address. Podhoretz’ discussion centered on the differences between the realist “school” and
the broader responsibility “school” of foreign policy. The realist school asserts that the best we can do
is support whatever regimes maintain order in the world and then rely on diplomacy. The broader
responsibility school accepts that we have a broader responsibility to defend freedom throughout the
world. As a defender of the middle ground I think both of those extremes are unrealistic. Teddy
Roosevelt said speak softly and carry a big stick; that, it seems (though simplistic) comes closer.
The problem with accepting responsibility for defending freedom throughout the world is two-fold: we
don’t have the resources to do it and the American public won’t support it. The problem with diplomacy is
that for the most part it doesn’t work.
Resources and will. Why not? Lots of reasons: selfishness is one (ours, but theirs too), and lack of
resolve on our part; but yet another is trying to police the world doesn’t work either. Other cultures are
not going to change because we think we have a better suggestion for them; it doesn’t work that way.
They are going to do what they do because that is their way – send money, but don’t tell us what to do.
Oh, and help us; we need help, meaning send money. This will ultimately become a problem because
they do want what we have, and want to work towards it – as long as it suits them, and in the process
world trade is developing. That’s good for us, but when it goes south we get hurt because we come to
rely upon it. So a world in our image is in our interest, and probably theirs too, but they are as selfish as
we and they want it their own way. In the case of Arabs that means constant squabble, with violence, if
not always for sure now. So we are going to sacrifice our world treasure to watch them blow it? Can you
blame us for getting tired of trying? Even though, in the long run we will hurt because world markets R US
and we need them. The long run is not the strong suit of a democratic republic.
Only that’s only the half of it. The other half is power. He with power feels he can make he who is
without power do what he wants him to do, and he can up to a point. That point is when you try to go in
and run his country – regardless of his culture. Historically that has been successful for only a short
time before the resistance begins to develop. The culture resists and it is often more common for the
conqueror to be subsumed by the culture of the conquered – wait ‘em out.
Then there is diplomacy. Talk is fine, as long as it is in someone's (whoever’s) interest to talk. And
when weak one may even agree to do or accept something that is less than in their interest, whether or
not following it is actually intended. When strong? Screw ‘em. That’s the way diplomacy works more
often than not. But, hey, it’s a growth industry in which many, many in our world stand to gain; great sums
of money are spent on talking and its trappings and many, many of the chattering class build careers
upon it. So let’s schedule talks; what’s to lose? Besides, if the other side wants it bad enough they’ll pay,
and in the meantime leave you alone. Win-win! In the end it’s mostly self serving – but terribly devious –
and worse, as we insist on believing everything that diplomat negotiators say. How is it we have come to
brand politicians liars and yet believe every word of diplomats? Treaties last only so long as they are in
the interest of their signatories, and many developing countries (particularly Arab) use them as
strategies to obfuscate: stupid Westerners will actually trust in them! But the vast and growing
resources of the community of international diplomatic administrators (particularly UN) are in full
support, with the help of our own “intellectual elite.”
So what’s the answer? The same as it has always been: understand the power of self interest. Talk
when there are no other options, threatening, sanctioning – if we can get away with it – cajoling,
demanding, pushing and stone-walling – but never, ever really believing in incorruptible veracity of
diplomatic negotiators. Violence is always the last option, but it must be an option because without it no
amount of diplomacy will ever succeed: speak softly, but carry a big stick. And that option must be a
serious and believable one; none (particularly Arab cultures) really believe in anything not backed by
force. It does not entail walking in and handing out candy bars and asking for love and devotion. In fact
Eisenhower’s admonition to never get involved in a ground war in Asia is still valid, particularly today
when cultural guerrilla warfare has been brought to high art. Indigenous zealots with funding can cause
incredible damage forever with meager assets, until the indigenous population tires of it and does
something about it. Which, incidentally, they have a difficult time doing when a dictator hires half the
population to terrorize the other half. And when we go in and try to help? They all turn on us.
Our problem is we live in a fantasy world where everyone thinks just like us and wants to live the way
we live, and as soon as given a chance, will, embracing freedom, rights, rule of law and respect of
property. That’s not the real world; the world we live in is one of brutal power struggling self interest, and
whoever is out of power, and can, will do whatever they can to throw out those in power and take it for
themselves - and corruption. And any (criminals, terrorists) that can will use rule of law and innocent-
until-proven-guilty against anyone naive enough to attempt to use it with them; it works.
But, we cry, we have met the people and they are good, peaceful and sincere. They are not like that.
Perhaps they are not, but many to whom they listen are, the elites who lead them and tell them what they
are to know. And here is the great dichotomy: relations among men are not as individuals just trying to
get along, but as decreed by the elites by whom they are led, and what they know is the continual flow of
propaganda that washes over them. Mob rule is still alive and well and exists just under every surface.
Nor are we immune, and we should never forget it.
To us such judgment seems harsh, as we feel it is not keeping with our principles, even though one
cannot help but wonder how strong those principles are anymore in an environment where a constant
stream of immigrants who do not subscribe to them flood in. Only immigrants? There is a cruel and
growing undercurrent in our own culture that has no intention of turning the other cheek and submitting –
especially when their own selfish interests are involved, though they might seldom admit it. As the crush
of “modernity” increases, there seems to be more and more willingness to employ the very principles
that made our culture what it is as weapons to defeat them.
Both extremes are wrong: unquestioning offense and bland diplomacy. We cannot be continually
rushing in and violently forcing others to accept our cultural mores or allow them to rush in and disrupt
ours. Nor can we docilely stand around as professional “diplomats” (lawyers?) talk incessantly while
excusing and defending instigators of disruption. Benevolence and compassion only work when they are
respected, and backed by resolve, often aggressive resolve.
Not overlooking domestic policy, I think it suffers from the same kind of dualistic approach: Social
Security, Medicare, welfare, education, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and surely more. The
big problem dealing with all of them is not lack of a middle ground, but unwillingness to search for it and
support unpopular policies. Why? Because our elites don't want to upset anyone and lose votes - and
therefore power. I'll not take the time to go into the details of each, even if I were qualified to do so. But
Social Security is a good example; had adjustment been made twenty years ago when the need was
recognized, much of the problem would no longer exist. Just as with the extreme positions dealing with
foreign policy, realism - true realism, for the sake of what's best for the country in the long run, is
desperately needed. Where is it? Are our leadership elites any longer capable of addressing it? Do they
even want to? Or is it all about them and their power? Again, the long run is not the strong suit of a
democratic republic
I used to have very narrow views concerning Social Security and Medicare, but they are here and they
are not going to go away. In fact people can no longer survive - our nation can longer survive - without
help in both retirement and medical coverage; we flat live too long. We have many examples to look at
from other countries that have attempted it - with big problems associated with their solutions. Do we
analyze them? And try to see what's good and what's not? If we do it's not evident. And why not?
Political power struggle, not to overlook arrogance. How pathetic is that?
Having said all that I doubt that we are prepared to do what we must do. Most of our population lives in a
world of naïve – and secure – complacent, ignorant fantasy, and are quite happy to do so as sound bites
of “correct” propaganda continually spewed by our “intellectual” elite wash over them. Only when our
bubble bursts and our comfortable way of life is threatened will we (they, actually – the intellectual elite
leadership) awaken to the reality of it all, and then it will be late – not too late; we will survive, but through
endurance of pain and suffering – at least pain and suffering compared to that with which we have come
to expect and demand. Our way of life does not fare well when constant improvement turns to decline,
and where competing for continually growing resources turns to being forced to share dwindling
resources. Then we will cry, why didn’t someone warn us? Only those that so cry will not be the ones
that caused the decline, for we will be long gone – and they who remain will rightfully damn us for our
ignorance.
The sad part is that all are not equally guilty; though we must all share guilt of allowing those who lead
us astray for their own selfish purposes to get away with it. We of the vast silent middle ground, we who
listen to their propaganda and follow their selfish – and often ignorant – lead are guilty nonetheless,
through omission if not commission. Yet we continue to drift, and sink, and listen, ignorant and
complacent, to the siren calls of socialist expectancy. “He” cannot defeat us; we defeat ourselves.
Hopefully we will awaken before selfish, dependent, complacency yields to the inevitable brutal
strongman, as has so often happened elsewhere in the past – and is occurring throughout the rest of the
world as we sleep - strongmen who quite often these days gained their positions through democratic
elections.
* Thomas Sowell essay entitled “Crime and Rhetoric”, dated October 17-2007: it was precisely the rise to
power in the 1960s (in the courts as well as in politics) of those who believed that "injustices and
inequities" were the causes of crime which marked a de-emphasis on law enforcement and
imprisonment — and marked one of the most dramatic increases in crime in our history. Having
declined for decades on end, the murder rate suddenly doubled between 1961 and 1974. The rate at
which citizens became victims of violent crimes in general tripled.
The Socialist Drift
This is becoming
increasingly
challenging, as it
takes us right back
to that which we
are unwilling to
support. Dichotomy
acknowledged.
increasingly
challenging, as it
takes us right back
to that which we
are unwilling to
support. Dichotomy
acknowledged.
And on the other
hand many such
elite leaders have
few choices,
lacking a tradition
of rule of law and
the reality of order.
hand many such
elite leaders have
few choices,
lacking a tradition
of rule of law and
the reality of order.
Same problem:
What level of
aggressive resolve
can be supported.
This is not to say
we don't need it;
the devil is in the
details. It's so easy
to say, but so
difficult to define
and make work
effectively.
What level of
aggressive resolve
can be supported.
This is not to say
we don't need it;
the devil is in the
details. It's so easy
to say, but so
difficult to define
and make work
effectively.