We are all standing on the shoulders
of giants. That is to say, our knowledge is built upon understanding
the notable thinkers of the past. Many of our ideas, innovations and
practices in the modern world are poorly understood by a majority of
people who are tragically misinformed. We use microwaves without
honoring NASA who patented the invention or remembering James Clerk
Maxwell who discovered the phenomenon. It's a tool which even
children can use and we give it no major thought. We're like Homer Simpson - "Mmmmmm. Popcorn!"
Politically, also, a majority of
people are sadly misinformed. Our national dialogue often takes place
in an informational and contextual vacuum. My prime example today is
a notion which many people would agree with: that our nation is
correct to find an alternative to laissez-faire capitalism and
communism to resolve class struggle. We give it our tacet consent
when we listen to arguments about job creation, when we bail out a
corporation or a financial institution, and when leaders encroach on
labor disputes. The president thinks the NFL ought to make
concessions to striking referees. He makes it known and we agree. We
don't like hearing the words “class struggle” because it's not a
unifying force in America. But some people still adhere, overtly or
deep down, to the alternatives which have merit.
Free market capitalism keeps
government's hands off of people's property and is okay with the
notion that people of all classes will struggle to improve their
position. It is a universal ideology in that all people everywhere
should have the right to be free from government interference in
economics. Libertarians are traditionally highly distrustful of
communism. However, a republic can bear class struggle as long as the
law is respected. We can point to Adam Smith as this ideology's
founder and perhaps you might consider Thomas Jefferson as its heroic
ideal.
Communism is a hands on approach which
redistributes wealth equally and resolves class struggle by siding
with the workers who produce capital. It, too, is universal in
espousing that all workers everywhere should unite and win the class
struggle by acquiring the means of production. Progressives in
America, despite being maligned for it, have adopted largely peaceful
and lawful means to perpetuate this struggle. We can point to Karl
Marx as the founder of this ideology, and a lot of people who think
this way tend also to think that a Che Guevara t-shirt is the pinnacle of chic.
Disparage as you will, you can't deny that the left knows its
history well.
However, the majority of people who
approach economics from a third direction typically have no idea
where their ideas first originate. If your giant happened to be a short nasty man with a bad mustache, wouldn't you want to know about it? The idea of a Third Way actually
originates with Adolf Hitler's “Mein Kampf” and is the basic
tenet of fascist economics. The unity of the nation is its overriding
consideration; fascism seeks to eliminate class struggle entire to this end. This is not to say that consensus around an
alternative to pure capitalism or communism is inherently incorrect,
wrong, bad, or evil. However, in taking a third path, people should
be vigilant against the problems of the fascist model of government
intervention in economics. Specifically, we should be on guard
against the moral and social failures of fascism. Historically,
fascists do not play well with others. And I shudder to think of them someday wearing Ben Bernanke t-shirts.
If there is a problem with fascism in
America, its main opponents, who are natural allies, have not yet
learned to find a common ground. Libertarians have a strong
understanding of economics but aren't always the most educated or
well-informed. Progressives are hungry for information from a wide
range of sources but don't always grasp important economic
principles. The fascism we know from history has had the most unethical
execution and the most inflammatory dialogue. A dialogue between the
two most rational ideologies to oppose it is a good, good thing, and
is the most important step in creating a better world. Principles of
civil discourse can guide us in rebutting and refuting the most
harmful aspects of fascism and making sure a harmful ideology doesn't
flourish in America during difficult times.
The people where I come from,
Kentucky, know about hard times. And I wouldn't have to explain to
them who Jeff Foxworthy is. He's known for the comedy routine “You
Might Be a Redneck If....” Well, there are certain other criteria
we might use to evaluate ideas and policies to ask ourselves honestly
whether they resemble fascist regimes in Germany and Italy leading up
to World War II. Let's discard the widely distributed but poorly
sourced “14 Elements of Fascism” and stick to the consensus about
the topic as defined by Wikipedia, which is verifiably sourced. Where might we find fascism in America today?
You all know that the Republican party
has nominated what it feels is the most electable candidate. This
candidate, Mitt Romney, pays lip service to liberty and stands
against progressive values unequivocally. According to Wikipedia,
fascists promote national unity by perpetuating war. Fascists
scapegoat foreign influences to that same end. Mitt Romney does, too.
Fascists favor corporations which are easier to coerce and manipulate
directly than the private citizens who corporations influence in
turn. Fascists also enforce the idea of national unity by intervening
in labor disputes. If you want to promote a war against Iran, if you
disparage undocumented workers as “illegal aliens”, if you use
“Islamist” as a scare word to vilify two billion Muslims, if you
declare, “Corporations are people, too!” but fail to defend
individual rights like habeus corpus and additionally you hope to
limit the rights of labor groups like teachers' unions, you, Mitt
Romney, might be a fascist. Therefore, among other goals,
progressives and libertarians should unite against a Mitt Romney
presidency. I didn't say unity was a bad thing.
What's wrong with national unity? With
political unity? Or with unity in your other relationships and
associations? Nothing, if it happens as a product of a free, open,
healthy, and constructive dialogue. The danger in perpetuating war to
the end of unity is that we could make ourselves the enemy of
nations. One of the important dangers of scapegoating foreign
influences is that we risk alienating those who can participate
productively in our economy, not to mention that we may fail to treat
them with the respect which all persons are entitled. The danger of
favoring corporations is that the tail can't wag the dog. You can't
simultaneously favor corporations which are free to be multi-national
in scope and work effectively to counter cronyism, corruption, and
powerful lobbies. You might also tip the balance in favor of a system
which excludes other rational voices like third parties from debate
because the major media interests who exclude them are corporations
as well. This kind of “limited government” seems a bit excessive
just for the sake of beating our chests in rhythm. It isn't
productive and it isn't necessary.
What about labor disputes? Mitt Romney
says that “corporations are people, too.” What he means is that
under our laws, corporations, being made up of people who are free to
associate, are guaranteed the same rights as individuals.You may or
may not agree with this decision, but that has been the consistent
ruling of the Supreme Court. However, in commenting on labor disputes
between teachers and schools, Mitt Romney favors intervening to
limit their ability to contribute to political campaigns. This not
only debases their freedom of association, it also debases their
freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has upheld the speech rights and
association rights of Super PACs to contribute as much as they want
to political campaigns. Why? Super PACs are people, too. But by
inference, according to Mitt Romney, teachers are not. This matches
the dystopic vision of George Orwell's “Animal Farm” where
everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others. It is
in the vital interest of all mankind that we form a dialogue which
prevents dystopic outcomes in the consensus.
So to whom should we listen? Everyone.
At this point, progressives and libertarians are contributing the
most rational and well-supported arguments to benefit our country and
our world, but consensus can change. It changes, conservatives, when
you stop believing everything you see on Fox News, hear on talk
radio, or read in Newsweek. In other words, learn to think
critically. It changes when you stop disparaging people with
differing viewpoints, associations, and nationalities. That includes
my lesbian co-parents, a few of my ancestors who were undocumented
immigrants fleeing Czarist Russia, the nice moderate Saudis I chat
with in the hookah bar who happen to be Muslim, and my roommates who
need food stamps. It changes when you source your claims verifiably
and reliably instead of blathering on for years about how Barack
Obama isn't an American. In short, it changes when you learn to
collaborate. For now, it seems, you are not in the consensus position
– nor the majority.
What happens if the consensus fails?
If Mitt Romney is elected president, we've blown it. Seriously.
It should not be necessary this time for the rational consensus to
vote as a bloc. The Republican party is divided, Gary Johnson is
providing a clear and rational voice for fiscal conservatives who are
dissenting, Barack Obama is ahead in the polls, and a Romney comeback
would be rather unprecedented. So the consensus doesn't need to argue
about “vote wasting” or form a voting pact. It just needs to vote. And until then? Right now, more than
ever before, it is more necessary to wage a campaign of fact. Fact
will improve our political process by countering harmful propaganda
and disinformation. Fact will improve our political process by
providing a foundation for a more civil discourse. Fact will improve
our political process by promoting the most rational candidates. And
yes, absolutely, fact promoted with conviction will energize the most
well-informed electorate.
The most important facts we can
propagate right now are those seen clearly in video. Going forward,
accurate predictions by scientists and economists are very strong
facts to promote in any form as well. They indicate the views which
should carry the most weight. Please, everyone, keep the facts
coming, turn out on Election Day, and vote your conscience. I welcome
your comments.
