[ANALYSIS and OPINION.]
A politically polarized and divided America is a weak America. A weak America is a less influential actor in international affairs and makes the world a more dangerous place. It also makes everyday life here at home less certain, prone to social disharmony, less business-friendly and thus a far less pleasant place to live.
In the last ten or years or so (probably longer) activists whose philosophies sit at the ends of the both the political left and the right have made it increasingly difficult for our elected representatives to work with the opposing party to help solve this nation’s problems. This, in large measure, has been caused by the rise of cable television and other online sources that masquerade as news but, in reality, are nothing but propaganda providing a constant barrage of content designed, not to objectively inform, but to entertain, proselytize and even incite audiences who seem to have an unquenchable thirst for content that is sensationalized and/or that tells them exactly what they, the audience, wants to hear. And too often, people only want to hear or see programing that is consistent with their pre-conceived political opinions. Factual reporting and the objective search for truth are apparently too boring, too time consuming and/or too unsettling and thus matter too little.
To add to this, the internet, Facebook, Twitter etc., and the never-ending quest for “clicks” to move up in Google’s and/or Bing’s search engine results and/or to attract advertisers has increased the volume of sensationalized information and content that one sees on these media. After all who wants to read bland objective factual news. The pervasive attitude is: No, let’s click on this scandalous piece instead. Moreover, the internet is taylor-made for foreign adversaries to plant misinformation online (again using click-bait and/or scandalous material of some type) so as to inflame the debate, further mislead and thus divide and weaken America. And it works!
Facts and the truth do not get rewarded on the internet or by a lot of cable television programming. Titillating and/or inflammatory content do.
ON THE ONE HAND
One extremely troubling and dangerous consequence of this constant barrage of propaganda masquerading as news is that many politicians, fearing the wrath of the politically energized segments of their party (who now have been virtually brain-washed by the media) cannot bring themselves to publicly admit it when the obvious facts are against their party or, more specifically their leader’s interests. Clearly, these neutered politicians not only fear not getting re-elected come next election day, but they are also becoming increasingly concerned for the safety of themselves and their families if they have the courage to speak out against their leader. In a sense, they’ve let too much misinformation go unanswered for so long that they are no longer “leaders” but in a sense, only a bunch of whipped-puppy mouthpieces at the beck and call of the conspiracy-theory right-wing extremists of their own party– a mob which they, themselves, have largely enabled. And to make matters worse, if that’s possible, certain areas of the country seem Hell-bent on electing fringe element demagogue-types to Congress. And, of course, these elected wackos, who enjoy making Wild West shoot ‘em up inflammatory sound bites, are the ones who get all of the attention on the evening news.
But whose fault is this? Would the media publish or air jaded and politically slanted content if the public didn’t, in fact, want it? As consumers, we all express our desires by our actions. What do we click on? What do we listen to? These are the only things that advertisers will pay for. So, that’s what gets published, aired, broadcasted, produced and moved to the top of Google’s and Bing’s search engine results. And now, this country, and the world for that matter, are suffering the consequences of this dysfunction.
It should be noted here that all the foregoing argues for a stronger educational system that places more emphasis on courses in logic, history, government, science and critical-thinking skills. The obvious reason for saying this is that one can only hope that, well educated people are better able to discern fact from fiction than uneducated ones. * (For one thing they know that they must always get their information from different sources with different perspectives.) Naturally, however, there is one political party that wants to do away with the Department of Education, and they are also the ones who also consistently find themselves at odds with the vast majority of scientists who say that global warming is real and must be addressed. Moreover, for the last one hundred years or so, educational textbooks have taught us about Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Mussolini as well as communism and fascism. Does that mean that our educators endorse communism or fascism? Of course, there are probably one or two exceptions, but the answer is a resounding no! So why does one political party have a tendency to want to ban certain books and any mention in other books of Critical Race Theory? ( Isn’t the last word in that name “theory”? Marx had a “theory”. Theories are suppositions or assumptions that are subject to being disproven. The name Critical Race Theory indicates that it is only an assumption capable of being refuted. Banning books and quashing debate are both hallmarks of an intellectually inferior viewpoint and they are the types of tools typically employed by dictators to keep the public misinformed and controlled.
And besides that, there’s always a strong possibility that banning books violates the author’s and/or publisher’s First Amendment rights.
A fundamental question being suggested by the foregoing is: Do our political parties, candidates and leaders truly accept the idea that the only peaceful, constructive and correct way to solve society’s problems and improve the health, safety and welfare of everyone is to first objectively determine the facts, then allow free and open debate, and then apply logic, reason and science with some sense of empathy for the human condition to arrive at a policy decision? If the role of government is to solve problems then this is the only truly effective way to do so. Too much reliance on unsupported beliefs based on biased and self-serving viewpoints that cannot be scientifically verified or repeated in the laboratory can only cloud, confuse and exacerbate the debate and lead to bad decision-making.
Christians will probably recognize this admonition: “Blessed are the peacemakers….” (And the betting here is that most other religions would have a similar tenet in their scriptures somewhere.) But the point is, that apparently, an ever-increasing number American voters selfishly and shortsightedly ignore this central precept of their own religion and then nominate and elect representatives, officials and leaders who have little interest in or ability to work with persons with opposing beliefs to find middle ground to actually solve problems. Instead, too many say that they want fighters. And too often they want fighters for positions that, taken to their logical conclusions would run afoul of the provisions of our Constitution that assure that it remains a democracy. This is pushing America perilously close to political paralysis, if not civil war.
Change is everywhere but rest assured that it is inevitable. Scientific, medical and information-related technology continue to advance at an increasingly rapid pace. All countries and all peoples of all races, religions and nationalities are now connected by the internet, television, radio and international trade. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students travel abroad each year to study. The migration of peoples around the world is having huge economic, social and political consequences. Although recent events have seen a period of retrenchment, profit seeking companies will always seek new markets and will inevitably transact business across national boundaries. Companies and entrepreneurs will always look to for ways to make more money and/or to get their raw materials more cheaply in other countries. For this reason, they will always find some way to look across national boundaries to make more money, to obtain a competitive advantage and/or to reduce their taxes. Some will argue otherwise, but the opinion here is that it is foolish to see the United States as being a secluded fortress America—an island separated by thousands of miles of ocean on both sides as it once was. As time goes on, it is inevitable that there will be an ever-increasing amount of cross pollination of culture, language and race across the World.
There are those who seek to stop this cross-pollination; however, history has shown time and time again that tribes and countries that seek to isolate themselves from the outside world, will eventually fall behind. [Consider for example, the indigenous tribes of the Amazon, or even the great empires of India and/or China that became relatively secluded. All were eventually subjected to colonization by the Europeans.] There are a variety of reasons for this, but some major ones are that new ideas, new technologies, new ways of governing pass isolated countries by—leaving them technologically and commercially in the dust and at the mercy of societies who have adapted to new and changing ways. In this regard, consider for example that despite all of its economic power, and despite having the world’s best universities, that the United States has lagged or is now lagging behind other countries in hypersonic missile technology, artificial intelligence and computer chip-making. These are all areas that could have devastating existential consequences for the United States. What would happen if we just shut ourselves in and refused to venture into the world and buy, learn or find out about these technologies? Shouldn’t we welcome into the United States companies and peoples who can advance our knowledge of these vital areas? Answering this question in any way but the affirmative will only lead to a backwards looking technologically deficient America that will lose its status as a world leader.
There’s no doubt that change is often scary and uncomfortable. However, history has shown that it is far better to learn the art of being flexible and quick on one’s feet than to stay secluded and learn and re-learn the same old ways of handling the same old problems and situations.
ON THE OTHER HAND
Even if it is assumed however, that open and inclusive societies tend to be healthier than closed ones, Nevertheless, leaders and the public at large have to be realistic. No one likes to feel that when they wake up each morning that they are strangers in their own hometown or community. Seeing a lot of signs in foreign languages and seeing a lot of people wearing attire that is not at all typical of traditional dress in one’s hometown can become a little unsettling, annoying or even scary.
Folks with African, Asian, Middle Eastern or Latin American roots are probably well aware of the deep resentment their fellow countrymen feel and felt when Western Europeans and/or Americans moved into their countries and started injected European and U.S. culture into their communities. One can only imagine what it would be like for many Hindus and Muslims to have had a barbeque shop advertising pork and/or beef cuisine move into their village or neighborhood complete with commercial signs in English and Red Hot Chili Peppers, Folsom Prison Blues or you-name-it music blaring on the radio all over the place in downtown Calcutta. Who knows, the author hasn’t been to India or Pakistan, however our guess is that the clergy and more fundamentalist Hindu and/or Muslims would probably be annoyed if not outraged. This despite the fact that some natives might even enjoy these things. Nevertheless, one day someone will walk into some shop and some neighborhood and realize that they feel like they are on another planet. Then the next day another person will have the same experience. This is especially true if other American and European restaurants, night clubs and grocery stores also start opening up nearby. The point is that over a period of time, especially if times become economically difficult, someone will make a racial or religious issue of it. Then someone will commit an act of violence. Pretty soon the nation is in a state of social unrest which often gives rise to political extremism.
This is a very sensitive point, however, the foregoing should be remembered by immigrants and by those who want to bring their cultural customs into the United States. It is tempting, and probably normal, for immigrants and for folks to try to maintain their home-country customs when they move here. Most probably think that they are doing no one any harm and that they should have a right to engage in their old ways and customs. The point here, however, is that the American public didn’t ask for them to move here and in a large sense, Americans have a right to feel put upon by immigrants and those who seek to practice their old ways. In short, immigrants and those who don’t learn English and who continue to practice their old customs are doing so for a captive, and many times unappreciative if not offended audience.
Similarly, most people do not like having their childhood heroes—whether historical or mythical, insulted and maligned. Nor do they like having old movies, television shows and/or old customs cast aside and closeted because they are deemed to be politically incorrect. Constantly walking on the eggshells of political correctness gets real old real fast, especially for those who’ve been accustomed to always having political power and cultural dominance but who begin to feel like they are losing it.
Putting the question of whether it was justified or right or wrong aside for a moment, and without delving too deeply into the economic statistics, generally speaking the cold hard fact of the matter is that the America of today was very largely the result of the fact that White Europeans sailed here and through their efforts made the United States what it is.* Even more importantly, however, is the fact that, even if this is not true, most White Americans believe that is. This fact, makes the use of aggressive language or tactics particularly by left leaning activists in the pursuit of advancing minority causes potentially more dangerous and perhaps even counter-productive as time goes on and the White population sees it’s cultural dominance and control slipping.
These are vitally important points, simply because any and all immigrants and, indeed all minorities (Blacks included) need to understand them. We are not talking what’s right and what’s wrong here. We are not talking about the non-discrimination laws or Constitutional rights. We are talking about the cold hard political reality of the situation–a reality that must be recognized for what it is and constructively dealt with by all sides.
[Author’s note: Elsewhere we have written about the removal of Confederate statues. Clearly one can understand the hurt felt by many in the Black community over the presence of those statues and/or other symbols of the old Confederacy. There is nothing wrong with removing those statues and symbols if that’s what that particular community wants and it is done through lawful means. [Figuring out who the relevant community is and what it wants, however, is usually very difficult. Perhaps local public referenda on the issue are the best means of doing this.] But regardless, if the decision is to remove those statues etc, it must be done in a very respectful manner, and one has to wonder if those statues should not be preserved and relocated on one of the various Civil War battlefield around the country. Allowing these statues to be defaced, and/or melting them down and using them to make other statues, specifically ones that would be antithetical to the beliefs of the men depicted only engenders anger, and a desire for revenge, in the admirers of those statues, namely an extremely large number of White voters, some of whom will inevitably be independent and swing voters whose votes can be decisive on election day.]
THE LESSONS OF HISTORY
It both amazes and alarms to compare and contrast the rise of extreme right-wing politics in today’s America with its rise in the Weimar Republic of Germany in the 1920s and then 1930s. The rise of fascism in Germany was caused in large part by the tribulation of World War I, the Great Depression and the onerousness of the reparation requirements imposed on Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. When fascism arouse in Germany in the 1920s and 30s, unemployment there was, at times, over 30 % of the working population ( see https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/great-depression/) and maybe even worse, inflation was at an astronomical 29,500 % per month at one point. **** (How can anyone pay rent and still eat at the same time under those circumstances?) By contrast, consider this. Fascist groups have arisen, gained strength and become more vocal and influential in the United States over roughly the last 7 or 8 years. However, in stark contrast to the German situation, (and up until very recently), inflation here in America has only been at or around 2 or 3 % while unemployment has consistently been below 5% . (Interestingly, 5% has, for years, been considered to be full employment by many, if not most, traditionally-trained economists.) When one considers these figures Americans seem to be very weak-kneed in their commitment to democracy as compared to the Germans of the Weimar Republic who essentially lived under the dire conditions of economic collapse for an entire decade before they finally succumbed to the wiles of demagoguery and elected the authoritarian, Hitler. When viewed in this context, can anyone really boast about American exceptionalism?
To add to the foregoing, here are some other incredibly important facts: The non-Hispanic White share of the U.S. population has declined significantly over the last forty years or so. An examination of the statistics shows that the non-Hispanic White share of the U.S. population was over 80% in the 1980s but declined to 69.1 % in the year 2000 and then further to 63.7 % in 2010. Right now (in 2022) the non-Hispanic White share sits at 57.8% of the U.S. population and is expected to fall below 50 percent sometime shortly after the year 2040 if current trends continue. At that point, traditional White Americans will no longer be in the majority. We will no longer have a White America.
Will traditional White Americans peacefully accept these trends? Who knows? Clearly there will be some pushback, but the question is: How much? This was not a very pressing issue a couple of decades ago. After all, back in the 1980s 80% of all Americans where non-Hispanic Whites. Back then 2040 would have seemed to be in the far distant future. However, today perceptions and attitudes are dramatically different. And this is for at least two important reasons. The first is that all non-Hispanic Whites who are younger than 70 years old, are beginning to realize, for the first time, they will constitute a minority of the U.S. population in their lifetime. The second is an even more immediate concern, and that is this: If the White population divides its vote at all on election day, politicians who favor policies that are favorable to minorities are more and more likely to get elected. This means that, even today, minorities can actually have disproportionate political power and can get their way on various issues with increasing frequency, especially as the minority share of the overall population increases.
When considering the foregoing, militant progressives and civil rights activists should also remember that for every minority given a job or an educational opportunity under an affirmative action plan there is also some White person who was denied that same opportunity. Similarly, for every school name changed from that of a Confederate soldier or official to something else, there are tens of thousands of people whose graduation diploma, mascots, yearbooks et cetera have somehow been rescinded or reputationally tarnished. School day and childhood memories are sullied. These are all possible, if not probable, contributing causes of serious future racial tension.
[Slave reparations are a subject we’ve dealt with elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the government has provided housing assistance, food stamps, unemployment benefits, social security benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, various affirmative action employment and educational programs as well as other benefits to all folks, regardless of race, who for whatever reason have been put at a disadvantage in life. Haven’t the benefits of these programs flowed in large measure to minority recipients? How would the heirs of slaves have fared if they’d have moved back to Africa instead of staying here? Constitutionally based reverse discrimination, statute of limitations, laches, the huge amount of time lapse, who will pay and proof of loss issues also make reparations an issue that should be abandoned by its proponents.]
Let’s assume, however, that reasonable, people can disagree on some of the above and that, for example, minorities have a right to demand affirmative action, reparations and mass reorganization of police departments nationwide. The point here is that even if minorities are right to ask for or demand these things, it is probably not wise to do so in a hyperbolic, aggressive or violent manner. In fact, it might well be best to await a better future date, hopefully when higher levels of trust and understanding prevail amongst all communities.
Why? Because not heeding the current political situation, may not only cause an important rightward shift in the voting habits of independent and/or moderate White voters, but far worse, it could lead to violence and, under current conditions, the rise of an authoritarian government. If one doesn’t believe this one need only look to January 6th and the continued questioning of the results of the 2020 presidential election. In short, right-wingers are driven largely, if not predominantly, by their fear of loss of White dominance over the American economy as well as its politics and culture.********* And, especially given the events, of the last few years, particularly January 6, 2021, all have witnessed the lengths to which they are willing to go to either obtain or remain in power. Democrats, being more racially inclusive in philosophy, see this new found right-wing militancy and are rising to contest Republican candidates and the political right’s attempt to seize control of vote counting and election processes all over the country.
All that has happened since 2016, especially the events since election night in 2020, is not “politics as usual”. We are now seeing the parties fight like never before to control who gets to vote and how the votes themselves are counted. All of this, of course, goes to the question of whether the general public can accept the results of future elections as being legitimate. Nothing except more social unrest and repression can come from a political system that conducts elections the results of which aren’t trusted and widely accepted by winners and losers alike. When one side doesn’t trust the other side to play fair and follow the rules then anything can happen. Unscrupulous leaders can fabricate any reason at any time to contest an election and/or to cause a riot or revolt. The situation is becoming too ripe for leaders with authoritarian tendencies to take control.
Let’s be clear. The United States is and should be a nation of laws and folks have Constitutional rights, including the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion and national origin. All of that is as it should be. Moreover, all citizens have the right to express their views under the First Amendment.
However, a major point here is that everyone, and particularly immigrants and minorities, need to be alarmed at how fragile our system is right now. American democracy is in many respects holding on by the barest of threads. If the Germans were willing to resort to genocide against the Jews and other minorities when their economy was shattered and Americans are already starting to get that way based on circumstances that are nowhere near as severe, how aggressively does one push for or advocate changing the cultural norms of predominantly White America? Who knows. However, all of this is particularly alarming when one considers that we are now experiencing high inflation, uncertainty at the gas pump, Western water shortages and many, if not most, economists are predicting a recession. Moreover, we have at least three major hotspots in the World. Then there’s the January 6th committee and now the execution of the search warrant against a former President. These are all things for which there is no precedent. In short, folks who want to push hard for big changes in American cultural attitudes do so at considerable risk to everyone, including themselves, simply because, if doing so pushes enough independent White voters to the political right, then our Constitutional rights might never see the light of day again.
One other important point also needs to be made. Our courts were established for a reason—to peacefully resolve disputes under the rule of law. For a society to function effectively the decisions of the courts must not only be trusted but obeyed as well. Over sixty courts have found no problem with the 2020 election. Joe Biden was elected President. Congress certified the results. The policy of the law is that there should be an end to litigation. In short, peace and harmony requires that all disputes come to an end when a neutral arbiter applying legitimate laws renders a decision. This has been done, over and over and all judges hearing the matter have rendered judgments confirming the legitimacy of the election of Joe Biden as President. We are well past the point where there are legitimate grounds for continuing to press the case that President Biden’s election was illegitimate. At this point, all who do so should be considered to be engaged in seditionist activity.
RICH VERSUS POOR: OWNERSHIP VERSUS WORKERS
This is a subject worthy of its own post. Indeed, its roots go back centuries. However, there is no question that a few of the important underlying points of contention between the political left and the right, include among others, jobs, job security and outsourcing overseas operations, wage levels, collective bargaining, social safety net programs and taxation especially as it pertains to applicable rates to various income levels and the estate tax. Of course, the environment and the general size and level of government regulation are also the subjects of contentious debates. Corporate level taxation, including the relative size of tax rates of different countries are also a big issue. Even abortion and education have now moved center stage. However, the sad fact of the matter is, that regardless of how important all of these issues are, it is beginning to look like the most fundamental differences between the political left and right are truly beginning to take center stage and, very importantly, they bear directly on the subject of whether or not democracy, as we know it, will continue to exist in this country.
[Author’s Note: As this article is being written former President Trump himself has referred to President Biden as an enemy of the state and has spoken favorably of the leadership skills of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Does Mr. Trump want everyone to infer from these statements that dictatorship is preferrable to democracy?****** ]
Let’s focus here on this last point. The continued viability of democracy. The political right has been fairly successful at convincing many blue collar and other workers, especially White ones, that government has not adequately protected their jobs from being outsourced overseas; that immigrants are a threat to both their job security, the national identity and the American way of life; and that when the Democrats were in power they didn’t do enough to address these concerns. In fact, more militant conspiracy theorists even believe that Democrats are conspiring to “replace” the White voting majority with liberal leaning non-Whites so that Democrats get elected into office more often.
[As has been noted above, this is not really a nefarious conspiracy as many on the political right would have one believe but the natural result of demographic trends if birth rates, immigration rates etc continue as they have been. But one significant cause of these shifting demographics is that White people are choosing not to have as many babies as they have in the past. It’s very unlikely that any amount of conspiring can have any effect on this contributing cause of shifting demographics.]
Progressives and many moderates believe that more needs to be done to help economically and racially disadvantage people. This includes minorities of all kinds, especially if they are disadvantaged. The political left seeks to ameliorate the politically destabilizing and ever-increasing wealth gap between rich and poor Americans. They support higher minimum wages, betters social safety net programs, higher tax rates on the rich, and a more robust estate tax to prevent the creation of what in essence is an entrenched upper class—an American royal or patrician class as it were.
The foregoing are, of course, broad generalizations that have exceptions. The point here, however, is that the information wars that are currently taking place are a major part of the effort of both the political right and the left is to convince ordinary people that they are on their side and that the other side is either wrong (to put it mildly) or evil and ruining America (to put it as the political activists on both sides increasingly do). In short, and to say it again, it is beginning to look like Weimar Germany all over. Back then it was the Communists fighting Fascists.
This is emphatically not to suggest that we are totally to the point of civil war yet or that all folks on the right are Fascists and that all progressives and left-leaning folks are communists, or socialists for that matter, because that is clearly not the case. However, consider the following.
According to The Guardian website newspaper, four years ago, the super-rich, that is, the upper one percent of the population, control a little over 50 percent of all the assets on this planet. And what is worse, that proportionate share of wealth that the super-rich own has been increasing at an alarming rate over time. This statistic has got to be a little uncomfortable for the rich, especially as the share of wealth owned by middle income families has been decreasing over this same time period. [See Tanzi and Dorning, Bloomberg 10/8/21. ] It is thus probable that many wealthy folks are deathly afraid of anything that calls too much attention to this startling fact and/or that is a threat to their continued ownership and control of such vast wealth. History has shown that distortions in wealth ownership on this magnitude are politically destabilizing. As such, on some level many wealthy folks (particularly those who are politically active) fear most programs that would directly benefit the poor and middle classes including most kinds of enhancements to social safety net programs. This is largely because of the higher tax rates that are needed to pay to finance safety net programs. In the extreme, the rich also fear the occurrence of what would be the American version of the French Revolution in the late 1700s in which many members of the aristocracy were publicly executed. Heads literally rolled. [ Note: Our novel RAO’s SOLUTION is about this wage and wealth gap between rich and poor and how to begin to fix it without resort to burdensome socialistic solutions. We’ve also done videos on the increasing wealth and income gap in America.] In an attempt to stave off any proposals that would improve the economic circumstances of the lower and middle classes, many wealthy activists try to label proposals to enhance safety net programs and/or to increase tax rates as being “socialistic”. This is merely an attempt to conjure up old Cold War and McCarthy Era fears of communism. What is not only unhealthy but also an existential threat to democracy is that a few members of the ultra-rich class, particularly those with media empires, are willing to permit the airing of misinformation and conspiracy theory campaigns to attract supporters to conservative and sometimes to more extreme right-wing causes. Why? Because: (i) conservatives dislike big government and higher tax rates; and/or (ii) because fascism, an extreme right-wing faction of the political right has traditionally considered communism and socialism, which are on the political left, be its arch-enemy. To add to this are the disinformation campaigns of foreign adversaries who love to fan the flames of every conspiracy theory that comes along and who very probably also start a few of their own.
The fascists in Germany, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s (the Nazis), were more effective than the communists, socialists and other left-wingers at rallying the organized support of the lower and middle classes. This, of course, led to the eventual rise of Hitler. A hugely effective way that the fascists did this was to single out minorities as being the source of all of Germany’s problems, particularly the Jews, homosexuals etc. and all other non-Arians. In other words, these people became the scapegoats and blaming them was a way for the fascists to stir up support for their extremist right-wing policies. In short, folks who weren’t deemed by the Nazis to be sufficiently German (meaning basically White, Anglo-Saxon and having German born blood line ), were not only deemed to be undesirable but also expendable. And further, the fascists argued that the state should be free to confiscate their property (which was, in part, one way fascists rewarded their followers for their support. Meanwhile, the rich were largely left alone so that they could keep their wealth and in many cases this wealth was used to help finance the militarization and of Nazi Germany. Clearly, one can see why fascism is potentially a very valuable tool for some of the less scrupulous amongst the wealthy to use their wealth to maintain control over the general, but less well-to-do public. The relatively few hard right-wing wealthy are, in this way, capable of dividing and controlling the ordinary citizenry. This is not to say that all, or even most, rich people are like this. However, it takes only a relatively few highly wealthy and motivated right-wingers, acting either through their media controlling companies or behind the scenes to accumulate a disproportionately large amount of political power and influence.
Is the same thing happening here today? Which President was a billionaire? Haven’t we just seen a multi-billion dollar contribution by a billionaire to right-wing causes? Didn’t a particular President support having right-wing groups attack members of Antifa, the anti-Fascist organization? Didn’t the United States fight a World War against fascism in the 1940s as well? Do we have any cable news or other programming that seems to have a right-wing slant? [Yes, there are clearly a few cable news channels and newspapers that tilt left, and there are billionaire supporters of left leaning causes. One crucial difference between billionaires who support left leaning causes and their right-wing supporting counterparts is that billionaires supporting left leaning causes are supporting causes that are less tied to their own self-interests and are designed primarily to help the less fortunate and/or promote causes that are backed by science. But here again this is a complex subject that should be discussed in a separate article.]
Make no mistake, Communism has more than a few very ugly warts of its own. In fact, Mao and Stalin both had more people executed than Hitler. And both fascist and communist governments have, in fact, been brutally repressive and totalitarian. Both lied to their people and squelched liberty. Open, free and fair elections were never held. Any elections that were held were, in fact, only sham elections held for mere show. And it’s this last point that makes the continued pressing of false claims about the 2020 election and attempts to get control of the voting process particularly alarming. It is the very first step towards getting Americans to become like the Russians and the Chinese, namely, to the point where the general public never really takes elections seriously because they believe the results are always predetermined and their vote doesn’t matter. Democracy will break down if this occurs. [ This is a major reason why court decisions regarding elections must be respected and their rulings deemed to be final. Courts, objectively applying the law are the only way to make sure, in a fair and neutral manner, that the rules laws are being followed. But once the court rules then society must move on, otherwise every government and its policies will always be in doubt. Governments and societies cannot operate effectively or survive if the legitimacy of governments and/or their elected officials are constantly questioned. ]
Before moving on, it must also be emphasized that communism suffers from the very serious shortcoming that it takes away the incentive people have to work hard, excel and improve their lives. In short, in a communist system experience shows that people have less incentive to work hard because no one is allowed to meaningfully improve their own economic situation because, in essence, communism seeks to create a classless society where everyone is equally wealthy and/or equally poor. For this and other reasons, communist countries have always lagged behind capitalist countries in terms of economic performance.
Having said all of the above, there are some other interesting facts to consider. For example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are generally regarded as the founders of Communism. We did a video on Marx and Communism. Some folks may disagree but two points should be mentioned here. First, Marx did not espouse the institution of a dictatorial form of government, as that term is commonly understood. As such, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and the other Soviet and North Korean dictatorial leaders have never actually implemented the kind of communist government that Marx and Engels had in mind. Secondly, very unlike fascism, communism, as envisioned by Marx, was an international movement—an international brotherhood of workers for economic, political and social equality. National borders were of no real consequence to Marx. No nationality or group was to be discriminated against except for those who resisted Marx’s notions of equality.
The above is worth considering because even though communism as it has been practiced is not desirable, Marx was at least noble and egalitarian enough to be concerned with the overall welfare of all people and he wanted to fix the huge wealth disparities that existed and make life better for the poor. Also fascism has always tended to espouse exclusion and discrimination against non-natives, minorities, and various other people who they would deem to be misfits. (Do any of these characteristics or positions, sound like they might apply to today’s extreme right-wing?) By contrast, Marxist socialism (in theory at least) is inclusive, nondiscriminatory and egalitarian. It is this last aspect of Marxist thought that particularly worries the wealthy because if those ideas are taken to their logical conclusion they (the rich) will be forced (albeit indirectly through amended tax rates and improved social programs) to share their wealth on terms that are much fairer than they are now. And in essence, this is where the swords really come out and the differences between activist right-wingers and activist left-wingers are really most on display. *******
The above is stated not to espouse the institution of communism or socialism in America but merely to point out that at least a portion of Marxist theory contains ideas that many Americans have come to accept, otherwise we would not have things like the non-discrimination provisions of the U.S. Constitution, social security, unemployment benefits and other governmental programs that many right-wing extremists view as undesirable forms of creeping socialism.
The bottom line is that the left and right will battle over the vote of the common man. True, there are left leaning media outlets and cable news channels that will put a progressive and/or left-of-center spin on news events. In sharp contrast, however, the militant right will do this by pointing figures seeking to paint various groups such as minorities and immigrants as being outsiders who somehow cause the pain of true Americans. They will resort to McCarthy-era scare tactics and fear of communism. They will point to the fear of creeping socialism. They will argue against science, libraries and school textbooks that contain anything except that which is consistent with their beliefs. They will try to divert everyone’s attention from the alarming and dangerous deficiencies of their former President and many of their elected leaders by griping about emails and laptops of two people who aren’t even on the ballot, namely Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton.
And now apparently, most disturbingly, hard right-wingers will press their cause by: (i) arguing that the 2020 election was stolen (this despite the fact that over 60 courts have held otherwise); (ii) by meddling with the rules regarding voter eligibility and the voting process in future elections; and (iii) supporting those who tried to interfere with the Congressional certification of the valid Presidential election of 2020. [ In fact, and again as this was being written, Mr. Trump said that he was financially supporting some of the January 6th protestors who were being prosecuted and that he would look favorably on pardoning them, if convicted. What rational person, what rational former President, would ever admit to wanting to financially support or pardon people who have basically been convicted either sedition or forcefully and violently interfering with one of the most important Congressional process imaginable? Is this not an indication in the starkest possible terms that the former President and his followers seek to violently overthrow the government or at least support those who will do their dirty work for them? If such a person or his followers were ever to regain power could they be trusted to relinquish power if they lost a future election? If not, what do we have? Clearly not a democracy.]
The bottom line is that the upcoming 2022 election will have a major, if not decisive impact on not only the important but rather typical subjects like taxes, immigration, inflation, the environment, international relations, military spending etc but even more importantly, it will have a direct bearing on how our democracy, if it is survive at all, will function. This is because the 2022 election will have a direct and major impact on the fairness and legitimacy of future election processes (how votes are counted and who does the counting etc). Remember whoever we vote into office is going to be the one who counts the votes next time. Who do we trust to handle this function? In short, the prudent voter will caste his or her vote as if democracy itself is at stake. All other considerations are secondary, including those that are otherwise very important under normal circumstances. What party, which candidates are most likely to assure that America remains a true democracy with a representative government, governed by the rule of law, with free, fair and legitimate elections? Those are the people who we all should vote for. Giving control of the Congress or state legislatures to a party that has shown an insufficient support for established legal processes and customs will forever endanger democracy as we know it in the United States.
August 29, 2022
Revised and Corrected 9/4/2022
And 9/5/2022
David Dixon Lentz
(Copyright 2022; David Dixon Lentz; All Rights Reserved.)
[Author’s Note: We have to apologize. As we wrote this piece news events seemed to occur in almost rapid-fire succession. Since the days of our first publication of this website we have strived mightily to stay as objective, balanced and as neutral as possible. However, it has seemed in recent days that with each passing moment our opinions on the matters addressed below have become more crystalized. As such, if the reader detects a shifting tone in what follows that is the reason. It is our sincere hope that cooler and more rational heads will prevail in the coming months and that this nation emerges with our democracy, the rule of law and the Constitution all intact.]
FOOTNOTES
* This is emphatically not to say that educated or degreed people are inherently more intelligent or always make better decisions than uneducated people. Educated people make plenty of foolish decisions. If education has any value however, it will improve the probabilities that someone who is more learned and/or aware of science, math, history, government et cetera will make better decisions than someone who is not.
** According to Historyguy.com the Slave population of the United States was, at various times, between 12 and 18 percent during the period up to the American Civil War. In 2020, according to Wikipedia Historical racial and ethnic demographics of the United States 57.8 % of the U.S. Population is non-Hispanic White; 12.8 % is Black; 1.1 % is Native American; 6.2 % is Asian; and 18.7 % is Hispanic of any color. The non-Hispanic White population is expected to be less than 50 percent of the U.S. population sometime shortly after the year 2040. The non-Hispanic White share of the U.S. population has declined significantly over the last forty years of so. The non-Hispanic White share of the U.S. population was over 80% in the 1980s but declined to 69.1 % in the year 2000 and to 63.7 % in 2010.
*** This article is not about the 2020 election. However, the view here is that the rise of Trumpism is very largely a result of the rise of immigration and the decline of White voting power in the United States.
**** Indeed the economic conditions in Germany during this period were “hyperinflationary”. see cnbc.com at https://www.cnbc.com/2011/02/14/The-Worst-Hyperinflation-Situations-of-All-Time.html#:~:text=every%3A%203.7%20days-,Hyperinflation%20was%20one%20of%20the%20major%20problems%20plaguing%20Germany’s%20Weimar,days%20for%20prices%20to%20double.
****** [Even if this is not what Mr. Trump intended, given the events of January 6th and the taking and then failing to turn over classified top secret documents that he’s kept in unsecure areas of his Mar-a-Lago mansion, what are reasonable Americans to think? Doesn’t Mr. Trump care? No politician in his right mind would normally say such things. And regarding the Justice department subpoena: What was he doing with those documents? Why didn’t he turn them back over to the government when first requested in June? Why did his lawyers lie and tell the FBI that all secret documents had been returned, when in fact they hadn’t? Why did the FBI find emply folders at Mar-a–Lago marked “Top Secret”? What was in those folders? Did Trump intend to sell secret documents to foreign actors? Were these secret documents kept by Trump as a kind of get-out-of-jail free card to be used as a bargaining chip if he is indicted? One has to be alarmed at the fact, that Mr. Trump doesn’t even seem to care that at times he gives the impression of a condescending tyrant who could care less what normal law abiding citizens think—that he is above the law and that he admires dictators more than our own Constitutional democracy.]
******* [Having said this, there are, in fact, examples of communist regimes engaging in acts that most would consider to be brutally oppressive, if not outright genocide, against segments of their respective populations whom they deemed undesirable. Although it may be subject to debate, we would argue once again, that these repressive, murderous and discriminatory aspects of communism that have been practiced by some of communisms most brutal dictators, are not what Marx and Engels preached. Instead they are what later communist leaders did on their own in contravention of original Marxist thought.]
********* It is true that some non-Whites support right-wing causes. We will leave that subject to other more highly qualified analysts. Our guess is that they are what statisticians might call statistical outliers.