“My dear brothers, never forget, when you hear the progress of enlightenment vaunted, that the devil’s best trick is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist!”
Charles Baudelaire, Le Joueur généreux, February 7, 1864
Forget everything you think you know about politics. It is probably wrong.
There is no left or right. Communist, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Democrat, Republican, those are all meaningless terms. They are used to confuse people so they miss the point. The most important point about politics there is. There are only two schools of political thought and they have predictable results. All the names and labels for them are just smoke and mirrors.

Political ideology is designed by elites to trick the masses into doing what they want. Each side tells you something designed to get your emotions going so they can play you. They get you to agree to give them more power, money and control over your lives by telling you some kind of story.
We need to put that vicious cycle to an end. It’s time to understand what their real goals are. But to free your mind, you need to be educated first. Only by seeing the road ahead can you avoid tripping on stones or falling off cliffs.
There are only two real political choices to make. And it has nothing to do with parties. It has to do with core beliefs. You are for one side or another. These sides are diametrically opposed. The best way I can describe the two choices is, freedom or slavery. That is what it boils down to. And the slave in question is you.
Do you want to be a slave or a free person? It’s your choice.
I’m sure some of you reading this have your guard up now. So take a deep breath and walk with me for a second. I am going to open your eyes.
There are only two forms of government. Every kind of government is a branch or variation of one of the two forms. All the side issues, are just window dressing because the root form of government determines a lot of crucial matters that effect everything else.
The first form has many branches and is called many by names. It is common. It is the oldest form. It is, in fact, ancient. It has many names because so many of those names have fallen into disrepute. So they keep re-branding it and try to sell it in a different package. But no matter what name it takes, it still leads to the same end result.
The second form has very few branches and is rarer than any precious stone. It is something many people want but few have had. The believers in the first form are always trying to destroy this second form. They lie about it. Try to corrupt and subvert it. Because they know it will always be more popular with the people if they knew they had a choice. So the second form must always be defended from the predators from the first, because it is precious. I like to refer to each system as the minus and plus system. But we’ll call them BG or LG here. Big Government or Limited Government.

Those who believe in BG go by many names, and many of these believers don’t even know that they’re supporting the same goals as people they think are bad. But they have been tricked into selling out their own freedoms to enrich someone elses. All BG systems lead to the same result. I classify this as a minus system because it’s negative. The end result of a BG system is bad for most involved.
The BG system is designed to feed all resources to a few at the top. All else are diminished in power and wealth. But the citizens are told that they must support the government and its rules in order to receive some kind of “benefits.” In order to get the treats the government doles out, you have to give up your freedoms and your property. It sells the idea of some glorious future that is never attained and only gets worse over time. But it always maintains that it will lead to some kind of paradise.
It never does. It usually leads to some kind of hell. But it always finds people to subscribe to its ideas who become fanatical in defense of it, no matter how much the system abuses them. And it deludes many others into wanting it because it preys on their human nature, the very thing that destroys it in the end.

The LG or Limited Government system is the best system for human freedom. As a result it has been very rare in human history. Where it has been allowed to flourish, human beings have flourished. But those who believe in BG are always trying to corrupt and destroy LG societies. This is because LG denies ultimate power to those who seek it. An LG system is more fair because you get what you put in. You have the ability to advance to any level as long as you don’t abuse the success that you have made or use it against others.
Before we explore how each system works, we need to understand the mindset of the people who believe in either system. I once did a cartoon illustrating the philosophies in the form of two Greek Philosophers, Aristotle and Plato. Each philosopher created the groundwork for understanding these schools of thought.
LG (Plus) believers are Aristotlian. They are like engineers. If something is proven to work, then they believe in it. They are not opposed to experimentation, but only if it involves proven principles. Ideas that are demonstrated to fail are rejected. They understand that human beings are flawed creatures. Humans are born hungry and spend their lives seeking to fulfill those hungers. In science terms, humans are driven by genetic hard wiring. It is part of their nature. In religious terms, humans are born with “original sin”. We can’t radically change who we are and remain human. We can only seek to improve ourselves through discipline, education, reason and morality.
LG believers understand that humans are often given to a lust for power because we all want some kind of control. LG societies are designed to limit governance so the state can never become tyrannical. It realizes that human nature is a constant so you have to develop a system that works within its framework, and keeps its basic problems in check. That way a politician’s greed is limited by what they are allowed to do by laws. The less interference a government has in human affairs, the more free the people are to progress on their own and flourish. LG believers are for individual rights. They believe a perfect society may not be possible, but it can be best achieved by respect for others rights and liberties. They believe in a social contract and the rule of law. They want people to be free in order to live their life without interference, as long as they respect other’s rights. The LG is there to enable the society to function and keep the peace, but it is not there to dominate or dictate how one should live.

BG (Minus) believers are Platonic. They posit that there’s an ideal form of society somewhere in the future, a utopia populated by an idealized form of humanity. This can only be achieved by forcing people to change through rules, laws and governance. It wraps itself in good intentions, but it ignores human nature, believing people can be changed by rules. Making the public follow orders will correct their bad behavior as the state sees it. It does not believe it can be tyrannical because BG systems are always sure they’re correct, not matter what happens. Dissenters are ridiculed or punished. No matter how many mistakes a BG society makes or disasters it causes, it does not admit its fault. BG believers preach dependence on the state. It denies individual empowerment or freedom and instead promotes group think. It pushes the group over the individual to keep people in check. It does not want leaders so much as followers. Its leaders are usually the hungriest for power that make their way to the top by gaming the system.

BG societies are constantly creating diversions to keep the public focused on policies it wants to sell. So it often creates “crises” of some kind that the people are supposed to rally around. In order to get them to give up more freedom or personal wealth, it often uses scare tactics. Threats of invasion, threats of nature, etc. The elites in a BG system always live vastly better than those at the bottom, but it always promises some kind of “equality” that never exists in reality. And because the BG system is large and complex it relies on bureaucracies to manage them. But because bureaucracies are made of humans, human nature always corrupts these systems. A bureaucracy becomes inefficient and corrupt in direct proportion to its size. The larger, the less effective, the more corrupt.
BG systems usually lead to economic collapse and stagnation. Usually with dire consequences for millions of people. That is why citizens in BG societies often yearn to go to LG societies. Many of them risk their lives to escape from BG societies that hold them captive. Because in worst case scenarios, BG systems imprison their citizens. They are all, to some extent, anti-freedom. It’s a matter of degree.
In contemporary American terms, the common names for BG and LG is “progressive” or “conservative”. Those terms have been used misleadingly by the media and others, so I avoided them. In part two I will do side by side comparison of the two systems performed in history. And I will explain the title of this series.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
191 Comments
As far as I'm concerned….progressivism is communism.
FDR was a statist/BG guy too. Just like Hitler and Stalin
Progressivism is a "third way". They've been trying implement what THEY deem the best aspects of Socialism, Fascism, and Communism (all closely related Statist ideologies) for over a 100 years. Calling it communism doesn't encapsulate them enough and gives them "outs" in the public debate when they can point to something that would be more in line with what people think fascism is… although they, progressives, would call it the "free market" hoping that their useful idiots don't realize that it is anything but the free market.
"Progressive" is a good handle for BG – though "conservative" is far more misleading. Libertarian, Classic Liberal, and so on are more exact – though usually those are lumped into "Conservative" but that side, in essence, isn't just trying to "conserve" everything (though, since the Founders were very LG, we are "conserving" that in America), but to limit government for the advance of personal freedom.
Good explanation, overall.
'Freedoms just another word for nothing left to loose', "vocabillary is the opiate of the people', 'you cannot judge a book by it's cover unless you cover just another', 'no sir don't like it, don't like it at all'.
Dhasselhoff, that's a very astute observation. I'm glad that you recognize that FDR was a BG'er too. Just because our nation was founded on LG principles, doesn't automatically mean that all of our leaders have embraced those principles. They shouldn't get an automatic pass just because they are the leader of the US, on the contrary we should scrutinize them even more closely!
Great article that states the truth in a simple and straightforward manner. I have been trying to get my academic peers and students to realize the simplicity of the political nature of mankind for years. Has a Historian who focuses in on Military/political issues, you get an A+. I can't wait for part 2. ;0)
good read. i'm not much of a watch maker, so the big picture approach works best for me. government, by nature seeks power, and in this pursuit will limit the freedom of those that empower it. our founders were brilliant in setting up roadblocks to slow this process, but the erosion of liberty via those that seek power has recently accelerated. we're witnessing the beginning of the re-balancing of power.
I know. I am using terms more people know. But I will get into all that later.
It was Stalin's withdraw from negotiations with UK/France in August 1939 and instead signing on to the Nazi/Soviet pact that let WW2 begin. Stalin's "marriage" to Hitler was by choice for the sake of a few peices of silver-Annexing Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Eastern Poland, Moldova, a free hand in Finland, oh, and a lucrative trade in selling war materials to Germany. Which were shortly turned into weapons for the 1941 divorce. I assume that the cartoon depicts the 1940 honeymoon while Hitler pummeled the Allies into dust with Stalin smiling from the sidelines.
By the time of FDR's involvment, it was more a marriage of necessity. Churchill understood what Stalin was about. FDR not so much. Not to excuse FDR's BG plans, but that's the history. Nothings EVER as simple as progressive public screwls teach.
The revision and rehabilitation of FDR and the New Deal are probably the left's greatest accomplishments.
Ever wonder why the entire world had a depression, but only America had a Great Depression?
Glenn Beck, call your office.
I pretty much agree, with everything. I've been thinking about this issue for several years now, and the best answer I can come up with is what really separates the two groups is fear.
Some people look at the unknown future and think about how to handle it, deal with it, move forward. They're not afraid to roll up their sleeves, and get down to work.
Other people look at the unknown future and fear it. Who will take care of them? What if they fail? The worst possible scenarios become their greatest fears. And they will do anything to alleviate that fear – even trade their own property and freedom for the simple assurance that some one or some thing will make everything okay.
Statists take advantage of that fear. They promise security, comfort, protection, and you need do is pull the lever for them, and they'll take care of the rest.
FDR was a big fan of Mussolini, and vice-versa.
Know who else allied with the Axis powers?
Iran!
They used to be called "Persia", but then, upon suggestion from Hitler, changed their nation's name to "Iran".
"Iran" means "Aryan" in Farsi.
What proponents of statism or "BG" always fail to realize is that you cannot equalize up. You can only equalize down. This alone is a recipe for a doomed society.
I've been writing on this subject for years, FYI
The modern day BG types have stopped using religion as a tool, so now they see it as a threat. Religion has never been a problem, it' the people who misused it.. I will have a whole article on that.
it is good to finally see the Progressive Movement being 'outed' for what it is…
Like all corrupt ideologies, it needs secrets and subtrefuge to thrive. Taking over the dialectic in the early 20th century was key; as was infiltrating both parties. A partial list of Progressives:
1) Teddy Roosevelt 2) Woodrow Wilson 3) Hoover 4) John Dewey 5) Margaret Sanger 6) FDR 7) Joseph Kennedy
Prescott Bush 9)Truman 10)Nixon 11) Kissinger 12) Brzezinski 13) Bush 41 14)the Clintons 15)Obama
that's for starters…
Conservative is downright deceptive. What exactly are they conserving? It appears that Big Church (BG) has taken over conservatism (see Roman Catholic Church), and it appears they'd like to create a global conservative party. That means smashing U.S. borders. So much for "conserving" the United States.
Over the past several years I have become a "watch maker". I want to know the gears and actions of the Tyrannical and Liberty movements and systems of the past and present.
In all that I have learned there is still one question that escapes answer: Why, when Big Government (Statism) is consistently proven to fail and leave it's followers impoverished and enslaved, do "the masses" still subscribe to the false utopia of liberty crushing systems?
Is it ignorance? Greed? Jealousy? Laziness? What am I missing?
Wonderful article James! I love how you have taken it down to a primer level. With your use of words we have a way to come to common ground with those who have sold themselves out to BG in our country. The political parties in this country have polarized us from seeing the truth our Forefathers set down in the Constitution because they have both sold out to the BG. Only "We the people" can change this mess we are currently in.
This is something I may be able to share with my liberal father, I know he wants individual rights and freedom, but his greed has sold him out to entitlements, i.e. Social Security, Healthcare. "I worked for them and by God no one is going to take them away from me! I am entitled!" Meanwhile, my husband and I know there will be no retirement in our lives, especially as we see the economic chaos looming on the horizon.
I am looking forward to the next installment!
Cool. I look forward to reading them.
This left/right nonsense that the Progressives have set up is infuriating.
Well said Ed. I have noticed something interesting about the reaction of those on the left to survivalists and "preppers". They instantly mock and dismiss them as crazy wing nuts, even if it's minor common sense measures such as some extra food in case the power goes out for a couple days. I have been contemplating why it evokes such a visceral response from them.
I think it's because they are unable to cope with the possibility of society falling apart. They have their future/security fears, and other's preparations validate these fears. Thus their Alinski-esque mock response. They also believe government can, and should, always be there to rescue them. Thus the independance of others makes them respond with jealousy, cloaked in dismissive disdain, as leftists reflexively feel, "everyone should have the same".
I vote for freedom and liberty . . . LETS ROLL BABY!
Ever see Thomas Woods video? Why didn't you hear about the great depression of 1920?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
Ever see Thomas Woods video? Why didn't you hear about the great depression of 1920?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVsr-_-v2sI
Save our republic and replace congress!!!
"it is good to finally see the Progressive Movement being 'outed' for what it is… "
That my friend may be what saves our country! It has been very difficult to watch what has been happening to our country this last year with its steep decline, but it has been eroding away for years, as you say "infiltrating in both parties." Obama and his ilk have put direct light on the dark decent we have been taking and that ultimately may save our tukas!
They were always Iran. Persia was an imposition from Greek times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran
A cultured and independent people – THAT is what the globalists HATE and that is why you are being programmed to hate them. The US was a pushover allowing the globalists to operate and use our government while the population watched football. And they are out to smear any country that might be a threat to world government (since US is no opposition).
Great article. You broke it down to bare bones. Thank you.
So that's it then? It's either Plato or Aristotle? Locke doesn't matter? Carl Marx doesn't matter? Hayek? Nozick? John Rawls doesn't matter? The reductionism of your premise strikes me as adolescent, and your case for it tries very hard to be smarter than it actually is. In fact, there are very relevant theories and ideas that underpin the schools of thought driving the political debate today which can be analyzed for their truth, merit and impact. It's much more complicated than – "limited govt good – big government bad" – Danes have big government and their society works quite well. Real dialog about our fundamental nature and the theories justifying various approaches to govt needs to happen, with facts and ideas – not insipid name calling that fails to even glimpse at the underlying contest of principles and ideas that is actually at work.
Read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"; a lot of the same ideas.
To quote James:
"Humans are born hungry and spend their lives seeking to fulfill those hungers. In science terms, humans are driven by genetic hard wiring. It is part of their nature. In religious terms, humans are born with “original sin”. We can’t radically change who we are and remain human. We can only seek to improve ourselves through discipline, education, reason and morality."
Man has the need to control, thus the expulsion from Eden. We see people wanting to contol in everyday life, in our homes, work, and school, anywhere there is more than two people, that nature can rear its ugly head.
Fascism,Progressivism,Communism-ALL THE SAME THING. The basic tenets of each one is the same. Nanny govt knows best and will do anything to protect big government. The earliest known followers in the US were Woodrow Wilson(a former university president-sound familiar?) and William Jennings Bryant , the man who wanted to destroy capitalism back in the 1890s by destroying the gold standard. Any coincidence that Wilson and Bryant were two of the earliest supporters of the Federal Reserve? And Wilson was the one behind the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments, using our involvement in ww1 as cover? Sound familiar(A crisis is too good to waste-where did we hear that recently?)As for religion-the statist mentality REQUIRES destroying institutions like church, family , etc(remember ANTONIO GRAMSCI). After all, what was KARL MARX-a self hating Jewish homosexual who hated the family structure PERIOD. Every agenda item of the left today was used by Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler , Mao and Castro-and we all know whose these scum are today.
Indeed-everyone is correct when they mention FDR was as big a statist as Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were. The other common thread amongst ALL of them was they were never held accountable by the media. Like Obama today, FDR was treated with cult-like status by the media of there day. Even the Soviet Union was often treated with puff pieces like Walter Durantys “potemkin village” comments about Stalin and his refusing to report Stalins mass starvation of Ukranians and Gypsies in order to subjegate the Ukraine. Niether did the media mention the mass murders of Maos “hundred flowers” campaign to purge Red China of pro-western intellectuals or his barbaric “cultural revolution”. The media has been failing to do its first amendment job for over 7 decades now. They share much of the blame for the excesses of statism.
What a misinformed interpretation of Plato! Try again.
You are both making James' point, that there really are only two systems in the end, one based on liberty, and the other on bondage. To take a narrower point, though, I'd agree with zeezil. As Mr. Beck puts it, the difference between communism and progressivism is not where you go, but how you get there. Communists do it by revolution, and progressives by evolution. The end goal is the same — complete subjugation of the people by a few "advanced" elites, which is a necessary step on the way to Utopia (which never seems to happen).
Progressives don’t respect Conservatives because they make absurd comments and miss the point entirely. A perfect example is the post from Maui. He assumes all progressives just want the government to take care of them and are jealous of independent people. That comment is stupid and childish. I am an independent person who has worked very hard for what I have.
Another common gem I hear is that all progressive want big government. I certainly don’t want government running my life. The difference is that I don’t want big corporations running my life EITHER. Just look how Conservatives are so opposed to fixing health care because it cuts into corporate profits. The freedom Conservatives are fighting for is freedom for corporations NOT individuals. That is what frightens me most about the Conservative movement in this country. Being a Progressive is not about having everyone get the same things in life as they would have people believe. It’s about getting our fair share after working hard.
Whether or not it was called "Iran", it was just one part ruled by the Ottoman Empire. It was all of the Ottoman Empire that were allied with the Axis powers (if I am not mistaken).
Amen, Redtex!
Another explanation that has been circulating the internet for a while:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
Emotionalism is the trigger to entrap us. A gentle tug at the heart strings by a clever party can invoke a needed response, using fear, greed, want, love and hate to such a degree, we often times don't realized we've been played until it's too late. It permeates every facet of our society at every level, right down to our schools and churches, and is the most destuctive influence over us as it will cause otherwise sane people to sell their God-giver birthright in order to be free of doubt and uncertainty.
It's refreshing to see this topic hashed out like Hudnall does here. I've long held that liberal and conservative are essentially bad terms to describe political thought in the US. However, it can be simplified similarly to what Hudnall describes above…the opposite ends are totalitarianism and anarchy, or complete government control versus the complete lack of any government control.
The nuance here, though, is that most people believe they wholly exist on one side or the other. I believe that specific issues and their advocate's resolutions are parsable into the different sides. For instance, I'm a pro-life guy who's argument against abortion has zero to do with religion. I do realize, though, that any sort of government policy favoring my point of view on the subject is, by necessity, going to lean toward the left, ie, coercive laws making abortion illegal. Personally, I don't think we'll ever get to that point as the djinni is already out of the bottle. In a free society interested in compromise, I think the best we'll get is abortions illegal after the first trimester with very rigidly explained exceptions. The sci-fi geek in me insists that technology will relegate the whole argument to the dustbin in any case.
Isn't this article a bit simplistic? One side good, one side bad, one decent, one indecent. Gosh, you mean there are demagogues amongst us? And wolves? The facile way you deconstruct Plato and Aristotle's philosophy just to serve the argument – btw, are you channeling Ayn Rand on this matter? – just leads me to think this article is, not right or wrong, let's get beyond that, just weak and simple and ineffectual.
Look, people don't choose to do what's right once they know the right, as Socrates would say – no, they persist in wrongdoing and wickedness despite knowing the difference. Past a certain point they need to be restrained, not convinced. I suppose we're defining that point now as a nation. Tyrants have to be stopped at the cost of our blood, there's no getting around that. God Bless the Tea-Baggers – YES, I said Tea-Baggers! Embrace everything your enemies call you, eat it for breakfast, lunch, and din-din – it will only make you stronger. The Liberal is bankrupt morally and intellectually, never forget that . The elites simply hold mirrors up to one another reflecting back their own emptiness.
Anyway, the Ideals of Plato should not just be brushed aside to serve your purpose here, Beauty and Truth and Love and Wisdom and Freedom won't like it very much. Anyway, doesn't Aristotle basically agree with Plato, except that he does not see the Form outside the material substance or the efficient cause? Just asking…
Why not just call it Collectivism vs. Individualism? That's what is really at stake here. It is a constant struggle between those who believe that individual rights to life, liberty and property are inviolate and those that believe that every man should be a sacrificial animal for his neighbors' / society's needs and whims. You started off well by saying that this is a question of slavery because that is precisely what it is. But you didn't ground your argument strongly enough in morality. To read your descriptions (as well written and thorough as they are) it sounds like the only reason we should choose LG is because it's the only system that works with flawed humans and prevents govt corruption. But that's not a good reason, the negation of a value does not a value make.
The reason to choose LG or Individualism is because it is MORAL and it is the only system under which all humans can live virtuous, happy lives and never infringe upon the rights of others to achieve their own happiness. That cannot happen in a BG system, not because we are flawed but because BG is immoral. Any system that believes that the individual should and can be sacrificed for the good of the collective is immoral. No society is a utopia if it can only exist by enslaving EVEN just one man. That negates the virtue of the whole system. So BG is a bad system not because it doesn't work or even because it is verdant grounds for corruption but rather because it's entire underlying philosophy and premise is immoral: Collectivism.
I'll make it very simple. There are two kinds of government: bad and worse.
I would agree that this analysis is way to simple to relate well to real-world governance.
Not too sure that the long run economics of Danish society are looking to good. Denmark has an underlying growth problem, and is projected to have the fourth-lowest productivity growth among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in the decade to come. It dropped from sixth to twelfth place among the richest OECD nations from 1997 to 2007. Danes age16 to 66 living mostly on government transfer payments is 22.6%. Taxes are among the highest in the world. 1 of 3 Danes is employed in the public sector.
At this point, the question isn't about "Big Government". The question is about "Big Federal Government". We need to restrict the ability of Washington to Federalize everything, and we need to remove the ability of the Federal Government to deficit spend. Why? Because of the 10th amendement to the Consitutuion. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the people of Massechusetts want big government, they can have the biggest state government they want. But I'll be damned if Michelle Obama has any right whatsoever to have a Federal authority intruding into the issue of anyone's obesity.
"Insipid name calling"? Like labelling someone's work as "adolescent", and '(trying) to be smarter than it actually is", as YOU'VE done? That sort of thing?
The Danish society is NOT working "quite well". Working-age Danes on welfare are about 22% of the population. Health care, other than for acute problems, and care for the elderly and children have suffered, while taxes remain among the highest in the world. Thirty-two percent of the labor force is employed in the public sector.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3167.htm (Yes, it's from OBAMA's State Dept.) This is only "working well" if you're a Progressive who wants as many people on the dole and dependent on gov't as possible, and if you think economic growth is a thing to be discouraged.
You drop a lot of names, but your "education" is far from complete or well-rounded.
Much appreciated James. I've been following many of those discussions on the web for those years too.
It has been nice to see someone take it "mainstream" though; as Glenn has to an extent. But, this site may be key to the next level.
Kudos.
Notice whether the LG or the BG side is more apt to act based on "feeling".
Is it any wonder schools no longer teach logic? A shame that debate teams are not as celebrated (or more so) than football teams.
Both sides are guilty of ignoring the 10th Amendment. The Left is probably more guilty, but the Right also does things like proposing school vouchers, trying to define marriage, and attempting to control drugs–all at the federal level.
The problem is the view that we are "one nation" as opposed to a group of individual state sharing a common federal government that is limited in its authority.
If you truly want to fully understand politics, left-right, history, and everything you witnessed in your lifetime..then read, Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg….but be forewarned this book may change your life and make you very unsettled…please understand that I am not being dramatic or exaggerating to make a point when I say this scholarship of a book could change your life.
There are only two political philosophies in struggle for dominance since 1776. Conservative, self government, limited goverment, constitutional. democratic Republicanism versus progressive, socialistic, Statism. Yes, all the rest is historical revision, smoke and mirrors, and political manipulation to disguise this fact.
I think you were so focused on showing off your knowledge of classic philosophy that you missed the main point of the article, which was an outline of the difference between proponents of big government, limited government, and the means by which people are influenced to work towards one or the other.
Give your professors an A+ for a job well done: You're educated but you can't think.
Case in point: the current administration…
Especially with THOSE hips.
My friend, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head! I bet there are people reading your comment that are bewildered or thinking that you are exaggerating. Little do they know just how accurate you are! So many do not have a clue of the true history of this century..I know you are not making conjectures and there is a mountain of unarguable evidence to back it up.
Oh I know about the Depression of 1920. If memory serves the economy bounced back pretty quick because the Government just let the free market drop and reset the economy.
Speaking of which we would probably be out of this recession by now if the government had done the same thing they did in 1920.
I am progressive, elite and smart, you are stupid, therefore I will be your master
progressives don't like…
Old people
Gun owners
Conservatives
Independent women
Religious people
Small business owners
Big business owners
Those who are pro-life
Those who are pro-choice, if they choose life
Those who don't like ACORN
Those who oppose gay marriage
Those who don't like progressives
Those who respect the Constitution
Those who criticize Obama
Those who think for themselves
People who actually EARN a living
Dr. Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals
http://usataxpayer.org/?0028068146
Video – Public Health Care PSA
http://usataxpayer.org/?0054399169
Agreed. I was just trying to highlight how calling progressives communists gives them too much wiggle room to defend their positions.
"They also believe government can, and should, always be there to rescue them."
Katrina was a perfect example of this. People accustomed to sucking at the govenment teat waited for someone to come and get them rather than packing up what they could carry (by car or on foot) and getting the hell out of there.
Dude, you've been wrong about us on both counts. Most of us know all about FDR and don't think your comment is any new information. He was a BG guy too.
As to Iran, most of us know all about Iran and Persians… and that it was a great culture, that today the people are still well educated, and that many of them are pro American / our friends. If we could just help them get rid of their government… all would be well between us.
Anyway, I don't know where your getting these impressions of us. They're wrong.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the buzzwords "hope" and "change" resonated with a lot of voters. They just never bothered to think deeply enough about what type of "change" was in store.
The snake-oil salesman comes into town with a new elixir that will make you healthy, beautiful, and rich. It costs a month's wages. Some will walk away outright. Others will try it once or twice, then learn not to fall for the pitch again. Sadly, others (usually those with the least to begin with) fall for the pitch time and again. In today's world, it equates to slot machines and lottery tickets.
This is by far, by far [repeat for emphasis: by far] the finest [and possibly the only] piece of journalism I have had the pleasure to read from a "news" source/site in an extremely [repeat for emphasis: by far] long time. The constant 24X7 distraction train is filled with everything buy the core truths. You have concisely summed the core truths.
Thank you! I will pass it along to many.
Infringing upon an individual's inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and Property is EQUALLY immoral when done by a Federal, state, county or town governmental body. Size doesn't matter when you are talking about slavery. It is always wrong, in every single case. Just because the majority in one state wants socialism doesn't make socialism right – it is never right. I believe that this is one of the places where the Constitution is flawed. The Constitution was intended to protect the rights of the individual from all government infringement but instead it seems to have only protected us from the Federal govt (and of course if fails at that because it is ignored). Why is it okay for the state to stomp all over a person's rights but not the Federal govt? This is totally illogical and "just because the Constitution says so" is not an answer.
Great work, James!
It really is this simple.
I know that you will be discussing the rewards of LG- …Freedom, Joy, Compassion, Variety, Excellence, Beauty, Equality of Opportunity, Laughter, Encouragement, Intelligence, Thrift, Achievement, Reward, Mastery, Faith, Hope, Charity, Stability, Heaven-on-Earth, asGod[Love] intends.
It's simple for a reason, you have two choices of civilization (anarchy isn't a civilization). One promotes the rights of the individual, the other the group. No matter how you look at it, the BG approach leads down the same path. You may think I am being overly simplistic, but this is merely a preamble to a much larger piece. You are judging me too soon.
It will get more complicated as I go on but I am deliberately writing this to make it easy to understand. Too often academics are in love with showing how educated and smart they are they lose the narrative. I am a writer who is interested in telling clear stories that can be followed to their conclusion. It is your choice to decide if I am right or wrong, but you should listen to the whole argument before that.
You also answered your own question in the last sentence. Realism vs idealism. That is what separates the two.
Read my previous response the to comment before this one. This is only part one. I will cover all of that as I go on. The next part talks about religion and government among other things. THis is just the introduction.
It's a great book, but I disagree with his premise that it is a right./left dynamic. He makes the mistake of trying to cast it all on lefties.
Thank you, the core truths are what people need to understand.
Progressive/Liberal people are for Dr. Spock, everyone else is for Mr. Spock.
I have to disagree with you. "school vouchers" are not a rightwing proposal. They are a response to the runaway federal takeover of school funding. The right "defining marriage" is in response to a leftist attempt to redefine the social norm of marriage through legislation.
People can have whatever view they wish about our national soveriegnty, but our government functions under a constitution, and that constitution specifically prohibits the Federal Government from doing nearly everything it started doing since the dawn of Fabian Socialism.
Greetings, fellow libertarian*.
Yeah, folks need to realize that while the constitution was a noble attempt at restraining government and securing liberty, it is obviously flawed. Parts of it are vague, and it actually granted more power to the federal government than had been available under the Articles of Confederation. It also neglected to curtail the power of states to grow their own bureaucratic nanny-states. These flaws were, of course, compromises that were made in order for the constitution to be ratified by all the states.
Your other point is also a good one. Tyranny of the majority is no more righteous at the state or local level than it is at the federal level. It seems the concept of natural rights is no longer taught in schools, and I blame that sad fact for society's gradual acceptance of intrusive government.
*And fellow Firefly fan?
You're point is correct. To the extent that a socialist Massechuesetts would be depriving an individual of the rights he is due by virtue of his existence, I stand corrected.
What I should have better articulated is the idea, that the "Big Government" ship has sailed. We should now focus on returning power and control to the people (states) as per the 10th amendment, the power of the individual states being a constraint on the despotism of elitists bent on stripping us all of our rights and property.
Ah, I remember debate teams well. Competitions…
Fighting big government with more big government gets us exactly one thing: big government.
Look around you people! Wake up….it is all there. All the signs and action are there..for the systematic distruction of our way of life…I think though there will be divine intervention in the case of the United States…and something will happen to lift us out of this nightmare we are in at the present time. Know what you believe in, and believe in what you know. Progressivism and Communism has always failed when instituted because the human spirit wants to be free, not enslaved in chains…so I believe in the end we will survive this. Two books I would recommend Liberal Facism by Jonah Goldberg and Liberty & Tyranny by Mark Levin…Once you read these two books, you will be an informed American and can understand what is happening around you. Great article…
I love to read your work, DTOM. Woe be to the troll who stumbles onto your path!
We agree on that. I merely meant to say that the paradigms of the fight are controlled by the leftists/media. Conservative social activism is often not a desire to increase government but a desire to control or undo changes forced by the left's never ending desire to intrude into the lives of others.
Yes. Firefly is my favorite show of all time.
The conflation of democracy with republic as though the USA were a democracy and as thought democracy alone were a good thing has been extremely harmful to our society. And that is all a product of public education.
Thanks!
Spot on! A very brief glance through human history teaches that the most constant of all desires of human beings is to avoid freedom and the responsibility it brings with it. Nearly all religions and mythologies and mystical belief systems and philosophies and political movements and…well you get the idea…is designed to destroy or diminish freedom, sometimes covertly, sometimes in big neon letters. People don't just get tyrannies, they BEG for tyrannies so that somebody else will be responsible. We long for the Norns to spin the skeins of our lives, and the Divine Emperor to guide us to enlightenment. Like all things human, however, it's terribly inconsistent. People will vote for tyrants like Hitler, and join the mob in acclaiming Caesar, yet in their private lives may behave with extreme integrity and responsibility. This most ancient of all split personalities lives in everyone to a degree, and we each have to decide which side we'll serve.
In my opinion anything which promotes, inspires, or increases freedom, which is to say knowledge, apposite authority, and responsibility, is good, while anything which attacks or decreases freedom is evil. Creating big government which decreases freedom by taking away ever larger portions of the labor of its citizens, is evil, no matter what the stated or pretended goals might be. I reckon every single question should be resolved in the same way–does it promote freedom or diminish freedom?
That's why Aristotle's republic was so much better than that of Philosopher King Plato. Balance the bad stuff to keep any part from taking over. It's still the best form of government because there are plenty of petty tyrants out there and plenty of people aching to grovel to them.
Thanks. I will admit, I would at least prefer a few states where I can be free to the current state of affairs. What we really need to do is remember that this is not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic and that majority rule can be just as immoral as totalitarianism. The individual must be protected from coercion, force and harm at all costs. Any system that does not do that is not moral.
Maoist CreaseMold and LipSores inhabit the Whitehouse now…
Off topic but I can't help but notice as I peruse "our" new sites and "theirs-" Hufpo, Kos, etc. are filled with arrogant, nasty, sniping hatred and zero intellectual curiousity… while platforms such as Breitbart's are dominated by commentary rich with a palpable desire for the truth and genuine excitment over a broad based re-discovery of our history… I'm damn proud of the "team" I chose.
I look forward to Part 2, Mr Hudnall…
Left and Right completely define BG and LG respectively. Everything is a Left and Right issue, the farther left you go, the less freedom, but the farther right you go, the more freedom. That is why Fascism is on the Left and Anarchy on the Right.
I believe you stole this from the John Birch Society's video "Overview of America". Here is a link to their video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-90145859...
Funny you post the cartoon of Hitler and Stalin when it was FDR that allied with Stalin, too.
Great read! Looking forward to part 2.
There's already an all-encompassing term for the BG form of government: Statism.
Yep. Taught research skills, how to avoid and address argumentative fallacies, the effective employment of logic…. how to think and reason.
Now they teach the kids about "fisting" and "how to see Stalin in a different context".
Ugh.
Thanks for the excellent and well thought out presentation, JH.
You can ALWAYS tell the difference between the two easily. LG people are proud of their views and will readily debate them honestly, while BG supporters will always atempt to disguise their views and will disseminate when any debate is attemted.
Very true…and FDR was as big of a statist as Hitler and Stalin. FDR was just as evil as those two, and the progressives would likd everyone to forget that.
Overly simplistic, but then the "it's either this way or that way" philosophy does appeals to many precisely because it is simple. Nice try though…..interesting article.
The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
–The Communist Manifesto
LB is soooooooooooooooooooooooo successful that millions of Americans are on uppers and downers and relaxants and recreational drugs. But it's all good: there continue to be a few who make huge profits from it while you all can pretend how happy you are with the results of LB. And don't start talking about the moral values. Dang. In case you didn't notice but the elitists among the promoters of this model aren't what they make out to be. In a house on C-Street in Washington D.C. where the powerful elite, under guidance of Doug Coe, are licking their wounds after being caught by the media in affairs. Read "The Family: the rise of fundamentalism in America" by Jeff Sharlett and if you can actually get through it till the end, you may find out how much your so-called moral leaders are just another bunch of cold, calculated characters who could care less if you lost your job tomorrow, and don't count on them to pay you unemployment to feed your family. Till this day there is still total admiration for exactly the pair of men in the cartoon of this article: Stalin and Hitler. The only difference is, and you will find it in the book, all very well documented , is that they have found a non-violent way (for now) to control the masses. It's soft fascism but fascism all the same. Herbert Bush, father of the first Pres. Bush and grandfather of Bush the second had no qualms doing business with Hitler and neither did quite a few others who contributed to this model of LG.
All it took, and this is brilliant, is to realize that instead of being personality driven (which they claim was Hitler's downfall), they figured out that if they claimed God, the Christian God is the source of this LG idea, most Americans would go for it. Connect the idea with God, create the need in people to have things, ever more things as the only way to happiness and who can argue with that? So, at C-street and at National Prayer Breakfasts, the 'chosen' ones sit and listen to God who tells them what to do to stay in power… Bush Jr. heard him and now Sarah Palin hears him too… I guess I am out of luck but don't count on it, you're out of luck too.
Oh tressa, I'm shaking in my boots honey but to tell you the truth, I just survived eight years of a nightmare, my gun cocked under my bed for the day that Blackwater guards in Nazi-like uniforms would come to bring me to a detention camp and gas me. I guess you'll just have to hang in there and in the next cycle of the powerful you may find some sleep again. In the meantime I recommend prozac and a sleeping pill at night. You'll make the pharmaceutical companies happy and then everyone is happy. Cheers.
How smart can Obama, or the leftists, be if he didn't get the memo from the 20th Century that Socialism doesn't work?
Where is Part 2?
I think reading this article should be mandatory in our schools.
There are only two schools of political thought and they have predictable results. All the names and labels for them are just smoke and mirrors.
This reminds me of Viktor Frankl's thoughts on the two kinds of people in this world:
From all this we may learn that there are two races of men in this world, but only these two-the “race” of the decent man and the “race” of the indecent man. Both are found everywhere; they penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people. In this sense, no group is of “pure race”-and therefore one occasionally found a decent fellow among the camp guards.
I can't help thinking that this might be a good, comprehendible explanation for high school kids. Good explanation.
I use it all the time, however it is an Objectivist term and a lot of people don't know it as well. I was making this first article simple on purpose. I will get into more details in later parts. You'll see.
Yes, I will be getting into FDR and Wilson later. The first part is just a primer. I didn't pick the images they used, but that's ok.
I've done quite a bit of business with the Danes and I love them. But their system is not comparable to our own. First, people there accept their place in society and do not expect to rise above it. Second, it is a largely homogeneous society with every knows how to deal with everyone else, and what to expect from them. Third, they take every opportunity to rip off the socialist system. The first thing I discovered with them in terms of doing business was their acute knowledge of how to bypass the government tax system, and how they would do anything to get paid in cash.
That's reality.
No, no, you explain it to us, little grasshopper. Try a Platonic Dialog.
Liberty or Tyranny is what it ultimately comes down to. Also James, I like the fact that you are willing to give people of religious persuasion a fair shake.
And the press validated their nanny state expectations, while ignoring the harder hit, but self reliant citizens in nearby coastal AL and MS.
I do thank Larry King for bringing us the hysterical Celine "take a kayak!" Dion who wiped her tears away with her knuckles due to the glamour length Lee Press On Nails she was sporting. Had she used her fingertips, she might have blinded herself. Good Stuff!
This is a good article that starkly states the differences in peoples' outlooks – and would hardly be necessary if people were still taught about our Founding Fathers and their writings and beliefs. It seems pretty clear to me today who is on the side of freedom and who is not.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
"That government is best which governs least."
I wrote this to my children last week:
The only dichotomy that matters in America today is not Republican vs. Democrat, but rather big government vs. limited government and subsumed under this overriding contrasting view of the role of government are the additional dichotomies of tradition vs. progressivism, custom vs. innovation, prudence vs. radical change and finally, liberty vs equality.
The Republicans have largely failed to articulate a coherent governing philosophy substantially at odds with the prevailing orthodoxies of the left. Consider Bush/McCain on immigration, global warming, entitlements, border enforcement, budgetary restraint, oil exploration and drilling, torture, federalizing education, further expanding Medicare, McCain Feingold and, of course, the religion of peace. Worse, the Republicans have served to protect the flank of the Democratic party by ostensibly providing an alternative when in fact the basic tenets of liberalism remain unchallenged. And so, the legitimate concerns of a majority of Americans have been thwarted by a two party system that has failed to provide a real competing visions for America – just leftism and leftism lite.
It is imperative you properly characterize the nature of the problems our nation is facing as well as rigorously defining your terms. These are dangerous times requiring an incisive clarity of mind against which your education, the popular culture, science and your government have all conspired against.
Exactly, Robobob. Well put. The only thing I would add, is that if Hitler would not have been such an arrogant narcissist (mmm, sounds familiar) and split his forces to invade Russia, the rest of Europe would probably be speaking German right now.
No less a small government luminary than Richard Weaver extolled the virtues of Plato as contrasted with Aristotle. Suffice it to state: your summary and characterization of their respective positions does an injustice to them both an indulges in a bit of misleading pedantry though your larger points remain sound. I look forward to your second installment.
While I believe it important to distill information and to simplify for clarity's sake, one must guard against what Burckhardt called "the terrible simplifiers." The temptation in this regard that I refer to in this context is libertarianism whose oversimplifications obscure larger conservative truths. While the dichotomy between large and small government has assumed an overriding importance, we cannot forget the smaller essential dicotomies that define us as conservative Americans, namely: tradition vs. progressivism, custom vs. innovation, prudence vs. radical change, liberty vs equality and finally, the rule of law vs democratic rule.
Thank you. There is only so much you can fit into the comment box. Its just as well I have not figured out how to import those big multiparagraph comments, lest I venture into full blow lecturing.
It is my understanding that Hilter could never comprehend that Britain would fight against him. Even with the Poland ultimatum. Even while bombing Dunkirk. Even while bombing Britain. He just couldn't believe it. He was absolutely convinced they would quit. Therefore he repeatedly adopted strategies on that false assumption.
"The reason to choose LG or Individualism is because it is MORAL and it is the only system under which all humans can live virtuous, happy lives and never infringe upon the rights of others to achieve their own happiness."
To the extent that I agree with this, someone on the left never will because their grasp on actual morality is like someone's grasp on smoke. This isn't to say that someone on the left has NO morality. But it's morality without a core of guiding principles, which they deny outright. When everything is relative and all worldviews have equal worth, trying to convince someone on moral grounds is going to get you absolutely no where. This is why any debate wanting any chance of success over things like abortion need to leave the theological by the wayside for the time being.
WELL WRITTEN, by such a young mind, there is still hope, for a great awakening, that has been predicted by the (Forbidden) Prophets!!!!! Every human desires God, some proclaim themselves as the ONE and he/she requires servants at their feet while the slaves plow their fields, there are others who humble themselves to God and fashion their lives within his laws, which make them vulnerable to the (Self Proclaimed) gods of the earth, who sit upon the throne they must protect, to insure power to their naked rule!!!!! "The King has no clothes", is not a child's riddle, it's a warning!!!
Didn't take the time to read the title of the piece, didya Glenn?
Sometime next week.
No, I never saw it before until someone posted a link to it today. I added it to my blog. It's great. But I am not talking about American govt specifically here. You'll see as this progresses.
I don't use left and right terms because there are "right" people who are BG types, McCain, the Bushes, Ford, Nixon, Teddy R, etc,.
That is why this is part one. It's is called a primer for a reason. It will get more expansive as we go.
Ugh, indeed!
I am impressed with your credentials, and only wish every student in this country had an effective teacher in those topics.
The absolute best way to deal with Statism is to increase legislative representation.
http://californiacommonwealth.com/
http://apportionment.us/
http://thirty-thousand.org/
If you don't believe that the rest of the world wasn't also mired in a GREAT DEPRESSION, the you don't know nor understand the history of that era at all.
As a matter of fact, most of Europe, including the nations on the "winning" side after WW I, were in a DEPRESSION; America was only in a recession, in the teens, after WW I.
Those nations on the "losing" side, especially Germany and the nations which had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were in far worse shape than America was, during the GREAT DEPRESSION !
We came late to the "party" and once we entered the Great Depression ( though we were coming out of it and FDR made it not just worse, but extended it for many years ! ), things got even worse for the rest of the world !
Good grief……………………………doesn't anyone know factual history anymore ?
It was "THE CRASH OF '29" that began our "GREAT DEPRESSION" and while we would have come out of it quickly ( more quickly, that is, without the damned SMOOT-HAWLEY and then FDR ) , you don't know a damned thing about it, NoobieKid; sad to say.
Would you like a book list ?
I know about that and it was a RECESSION, not a "DEPRESSION".
Thanks, TR. I only wish the "trolls' came away from here with an education. Most people here paint a pretty good picture of what conservatism is all about, and there are some libertarians too, but I'm sad to think the "trolls" are here to lob bombs only. They could really care less how or why we think and feel the way we do about the role of the Constitution in American life, politics, etc.
The worst part about troll infestations is that it makes some people better at verbal jabs but it doesn't always do much for the skill of argument. I need to get better at it. Having fun in the meantime though….
Note the post about revisionism.. I still can't sort out all the facts from the misinformation. I think I know what happened but the revisionistic version gets me confused.. and clearly, I am not alone. Furthermore at least I know FDR lengthened the Depression, instead of ameliorated it heroically as those on the Left would have us think.
It only takes one generation for the people to forget.
WE THE PEOPLE KILLED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! THE CONSTITUTION IS DEAD!
That's right folks. The Constitution is dead and we the people who just stood back and did nothing watched the Constitution die right before our eyes because we were to busy doing other things than to get involved!
The democrats and the republicans flipped the American People the big middle finger by giving us a presidential candidate that is illegal and from the most part (there are a few of us that do care) the American People either don't give a crap or don't understand the threat this is to themselves and to their posterity or both! Look folks please think about this and recognize it for what it is and what it means…..SOMEBODY IS SAYING ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 IS A TABOO SUBJECT AND IS NOT TO BE DISCUSSED IN AMERICA! You will hear mention of the birth certificate from time to time but never ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1!
How is it possible that in a free country like America which used to be guided by the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land can there be this genuine phenomena of a mysterious power controlling the body politic and the main stream media by blocking any discussion of ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 for which Obama is in violation of! People this is a very slippery slope that you don't want in America (or maybe you do? I don't!) You people need to start focusing on this violation of ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 until it is given the proper recognition that it deserves and Obama is removed from office otherwise just get used to the idea that the Constitution is dead and was killed by the sheeple WE THE PEOPLE!
your answer is greed. personnel greed for power and money leads to corruption and failure. man hasn't evolved at all, we are still the same ignorant, greedy barbarians that showed up on this planet thousands of years ago. Sad that in all you've learned that these lessons don't take hols of society at large and that your left to still question. I applaud you for seeking knowledge and keep the faith there are others doing the same.
I really didn't want to get into too much detail about them,. I was talking about their influence in the foundations of governmental theory in Western Civilization. I was also distilling down to their key arguments. Aristotle has a practical "realistic" view, Plato has an impractical "idealistic" view. Aristotle was logic based, Plato was "cosmic"
[...] The New Fascists: Part 1 – A Political Primer – Big Journalism [...]
Some men are by nature ..slaves. – Aristotle
In a study of monkeys in nature, the most controlling male monkeys stayed mainly to themselves (BG elitists) and were therefore much more susceptible to a deadly virus that infected the local monkey population. It killed all of the aggressives. There were no aggressive monkeys (BG monkeys) left to "control" the others. The local monkeys thrived after this with little "control" necessary, or desired. All of a sudden, there were no "crises" that were perpetuated by the BG monkeys, i.e., pitting one monkey against another, rabblerousing. score-settling, corruption. There was no "us" vs "them". It was a 100% LG political system. This is the Utopia that is available that the BG people want to deny us. This TV program really opened my eyes.
Very brief, very apt, depiction. Excellent read.
Oh yes, I do no factual history. And of course Germany was worse off. It was called the Treaty of Versailles, and the Wiemar Republic. That's a result of World War I and allied revenge on their war time enemies, not economics.
But I guess you already knew that didn't you?
[...] column linked here is the very best concise summary I have ever read on governing. There are two types. Americans, [...]
Me too. I'm wondering about what it actually takes to start a "charter school" and how awesome it would be to have one focusing on the Constitution and American History (non-revisionist), Civics, etc. Field tips to historic sites are easy around here…
Just wondering too if I have given the mistaken impression that I TAUGHT the skills listed above. I have not per se; I taught college-level Criminalistics course in Biological Evidence and did instruct proper research techniques, some scientific method, test interpretations, etc. but did not ever teach an Ethics course or manage a debate team, just to be clear.
…um I think it's spelled "dialogue".
Bush 43 is also a Progressive.
Yes, I do know all about that ED and since you do know all about it too, then your original post was even weirder than I thought it to be, when I replied to it.
Though Germany's and the other European nations on the losing side were hit with war reparations, the fact that the war cost all of the nations so much money and so much was destroyed during the war, they were all in a deep monetary hole. So were most of the nations who fought against them; even the USSR, who had pulled out of WW I, long before it ended.
If anything, the European nations were in a far deeper depression, than we were, in the 1930s.
It is a feather in your cap, knowing that FDR made the GREAT DEPRESSION worse and extended it.
Yes, revisionist history confuses and it also makes people open to false beliefs.
If you'd like a book list, that would help, I'd be happy to post one.
Not according to Dr. Thomas Sowell, professor of economics.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Econ...
According to him, the blame for America problems gets laid on two major screw ups. The Smoote Hawley tariffs of the Hoover administration, and the tightening of the monetary supply by FDR and his crew. Not only did they not help, they both made things far, far worse.
Retaliation for the import tariffs shut down US exports just when markets were desperately needed for American products. And at a time when capital was desperately needed, FDR's fed started pulling cash out of the system.
And now we get yet another lesson in how government intervention in private businesses does nothing but makes things worse.
I have always appreciated Dr, Sowell and agreed with him; however, there were quite a few things besides Smoot-Hawley ( there's no "E" at the end of SMOOT's name, BTW ) and FDR's Socialist policies that doomed America.
Right after the "CRASH", the markets began to revive/come back…………….until Joe Kennedy and his pals began rapidly selling short, against the likes of Morgan his pals, who were going long, shoveling money into the markets, at the behest of Hoover, shoring up the market. Morgan et al had actually done much good and what most don't know, had gotten the markets almost back on solid ground. Sadly, they just weren't capitalized enough to beat back the Kennedy consortium and the "little people" who were scared blue and taking out whatever money they still had in stocks.
Smoot-Hawley was, as we all know, or should know, was a disaster! The rest of the world was already sunk into a depression, so of course they fought back with tariffs of their own. It was a lose lose propositions, as such things always are.
We had lent money to European nations, for WW I and they couldn't/didn't pay it back, which also added to our debt/deficit red ink .
All of FDR's policies made everything worse and added years to our GREAT DEPRESSION; that goes without saying and is something everyone used to know and acknowledge.
I'm a conservative, I think Liberal Fascism is well-written and accurate, etc., but this is just silly. There are only two types of government, Big Government and Limited Government? If it's "limited" isn't it just a special case of "Big Government"? Aren't you just referring to Sowell's "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions?
But more importantly, you should really drop the Plato/Aristotle dichotomy. You could not be more wrong about the relative positions. If anything, Aristotle was the greater pie-in-the-sky idealist. Plato's dialogues are full of the imperfection and limits of politics. The Republic is not his ideal city but a salve for the justice-seeking souls of his young followers.
I think Aristotle would be more likely to think that society can be put on a strictly rational basis, without God or tradition. He would be more likely to think that human reason can solve practical political problems for all time. But, finally, he would think that because human nature is fixed, there are limits to government.
It is an interesting question what Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, etc. would think of modern liberal democracies. But to lump Plato in the camp of utopian idealism and Aristotle in the practical, limited government camp is silly and wrong.
If you want, Locke and Rousseau would be better suited.
I agree (sort of), the Plato and Aristotle distinction is laughable.
I agree (see below) but I wonder what your take is.
But this is just wrong. Look, I agree with you politically, but you're really misrepresenting the arguments of classical political philosophy. I understand it's an attempt to find roots for your characterization in antiquity, but it's dishonest. It's probably not possible to go beyond the Enlightenment thinkers for any real parallel. Conservatives do their movement a disservice when they show their ignorance this way. Thomas Sowell (who is otherwise brilliant) characterizes Plato and Aristotle the same way.
It's not that you are oversimplifying. That's fine if it's a useful hermeneutic. It's that your simplification is wrong. Look, if Plato is more "cosmic" and starry-eyed, while Aristotle is "logic-based," where does this leave them in the scheme of modern politics. Were the partisans of the French Revolution "idealistic" or "logic-based"? They, following Rousseau, wanted to tear down the institutions of monarchy and religion, which were keeping men in chains, and set up the rule of reason. The central conceit of modern progressivism is that it is a rule of the ones who know– experts who do the logically necessary thing– removing the influence of fear and passion and instituting impartial reason in its place. Does this correspond to the "logic-based" or "idealistic" view? Both, obviously.
Where I think a dichotomy might be possible, and where you would have it exactly wrong, is that Plato recognized the need for traditional institutions in society more than Aristotle did. Thus Aristotle would be more sympathetic to the modern progressive project while Plato would see its folly. Ultimately, however, both understood the limited possibility of politics, and neither corresponds to modern liberal statism.
Astute observation- statist individuals seem to lack self-esteem and confidence in themselves, so they demand others take care of them.
I appreciate the attempt to simplify the competing visions in today's political landscape. I do think that anyone who is interested in further reading cannot do better than Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions", followed by "The Quest for Cosmic Justice", and "The Vision of The Anointed". Absolute classics and devastatingly revealing about the underlying philosophy of those with the "unconstrained" vision.
As a nation, we have travelled a long way down a road that our framers' anticipated and prophylactically designed our constitution to prevent, the tradeoff between security and liberty, as well as liberty and equality. Those with the Vision of the Anointed have succeeded in many areas in nullifyiing our founding principles right before our eyes. It is time to become aware and to reverse the trajectory before we no longer recognise this nation.
This was the best article ever I read! Look forward to part II
Thank goodness, finally, someone who understands. The most telling thing about these comments is that people are grasping for an answer, and explanation for history. Why do people keep choosing BG? You are the first here to come near the right answer.
Please read The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff. It explains so much.
Plato is the enemy of freedom and morality. Why? He is the father of utopianism with his forms. He places perfection outside of comprehensible reality. Aristotle defines perfection in terms of realistic achievement.
Reason defines morality and purpose in terms of life on earth. Platonic idealism defines these things in terms of another realm based on human whims, ultimately. By default, from the beginning, the ideal is unobtainable in Platonic thought. Therefore values are destroyed, life is destroyed.
The constrained vs. unconstrained dichotomy is massively foolish. In reality, the real dichotomy is whether your earth-bound ideals are constrained or unconstrained. Do you accept reality, or reject it? If you accept it, you accept man as who he is, and leave him to pursue his own life – limited government. If you do not accept reality, you condemn yourself to a lifetime of quixotic struggles against fact, the pursuits and values of others become irrelevant, all must be sacrificed – even if only in small measures – to the unobtainable dream.
This applies to religion too. Perfection pertains to heaven, on earth, men are just men. God, tradition, have no place in government. Unless you hope to build God's Kingdom on earth, as men.
Government is not bad or good. People's rights are good, infringement of those rights is bad. No government can help a people that do not accept reality.
[...] [...]
[...] Read more at Big Journalism [...]
Brilliant!!!
It makes me wonder why so many people think its more complex than that.
You have the same gift for writhing that L. Ron Hubbard did.
He also was able the reduce things to a simple choice.
I agree with you, It's simple.
You the next L. Ron, Baby. :: ))
Read F.A. Hayek
Road to surfdom you will see the whole thing laid out even though this book was from the 1930's
Reads like Obama/Mccain play book
Great article!
Perhaps the best thing you ever sent me, Ginny.
Keeps my eye on the Ideal Scene. It inspired me to keep my ideals in my heart and me and mine educated as to what really is in the 3 American Charters : The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence.
We have these beautiful and well thought out instruments, they represents not only the ideology but the embodiment of the best example of, "rarer than the most precious stone" that the author refers to below. These Charters are our common ground.
Everything else is just that… something else, or bluntly put: NOT AMERICAN.
If I know and understand what is suppose to be our guidlines, perhaps I'll be more alert and see the bad guys coming. When a heart is pure and you have educated yourself on what is true and right, it's harder to fool people no matter what "ism" it's being called but education is key.
I remember when being a democrat meant "For the People" when I was 10 years old. I even remember considering myself a "Liberal" in my early 20's when it meant "More Freedom for individuals". Now it's "politically correct" slavery or some such horse pucky. They twist the meaning so that the original meaning becomes inverted. This is very deliberate. Being for Democratic Rule is "nothing by the people" as an end game now. Liberals are socialists now. Once I thought those 2 groups were considered opposites- even socialists were illegal in this country. Perhaps thanks to smarmy ACLU (now what's their real agenda?) I guess it was deemed "OK" to have socialists in America. Oh, How "Liberal"! See how that's played?
So it's just up to you and me and our old "horse sense" to pick the being who's best suited as we see it to be in office. That is your and my choice and your and my right as American citizens and it's nobody else's choice or their damned business.
I think that's why so many people say they are independents. It infers that they make up their own mind about their choices and not follow a "party line". I notice that even the right leaning media is trying to get a "Tea Party" political party going. If so, they missed the point. Once it becomes a "party" it can manipulated. It's a movement, a grassroots movement. Lets keep it so. Free beings insisting that a hard won system be corrected and acted within the boundaries of the Constitution. It's all there already. Tea party people don't need to create a manifest. History has repeated itself again and again. We flounder when we diverse from these Charters. (ie Federal Reserve, UN Treaties without Congressional OK and tons of other unconstitutional crap. Stupid things- Like that guy that was arrested in Shreveport , Louisiana for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck .Pah leeze! I don't have or own a gun but I sure am glad others do and take the 2nd amendment as seriously as I do) OK, i'm off the subject now.
I think it would be a great idea for any Congressional candidate to pass a test or do a course on the Constitution, and PASS it before being allowed to run. (I prefer a course as tests can be fudged) I think it only fair that they know what framework they are supposed to be operating within especially when they swear to uphold this same Constitution as Congressmen.
What say you?
I keep waiting for Obama to go for it and go for the Executive Order button.
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
[...] part one, we revealed there are only two kinds of government when you strip away all the smoke and mirrors. [...]
Yeah? You have some point I suppose? FDR deservingly is lumped in with those two, at least in his unconstrained vision of elitist, top-down, oppresseive governance. Wak up and read something besides those weftie blogs you apparently frequent. Jeez.
concurr. just got a copy from Amazon. starting tomorrow…good tip!
Just finished 'Controverisla Essays' (fantastic and chopped into very digestible and forwardable bytes) after the masterpiece 'A Conflict of Visions'. Highly recommend Sowell…
OMG, finally somone who gets "there is no left or right", just freedom and slavery.
The two sides Fredoom or Slavery also go by the names Individualism and Collectivism
Mostly, it's a combination of the following:
Compassion for the "less fortunate";
Fear of becoming one of the less fortunate;
A general desire for security and good order, and a wish to avoid risk and disorder;
Wishing to be more like the "intellectuals" who push statism; and,
A serious lack of critical thinking skills.
I hope you meant that sarcastically. This country took the biggest slide backward into tyranny since Woodrow Wilson under W. Bush and an all-Republican congress. The Patriot Act, Military Commissions act, big brother on every street corner… wake up! There is no left or right, only the a-holes at the top of the pyramid and the rest of us that they step on. Until both "sides" realize that the Democrat & Republican parties are a two-headed hydra with the same basic agenda, we will keep fighting each other over "football" issues while all of our liberty is stolen from us one piece at a time.
It is human nature to seek God. Populist liberals have allowed progressives* to push God out of their lives and that in turn has left an empty spot. Attempting to fill that emptiness is what leads people to follow what seem to be well meaning causes such as "Global Warming" or "Hope and Change."
When these causes are exposed as frauds, it leaves the populist liberals in despair and disarray as day after day they witness their progressive* heroes twist and turn as their lies become more and more bizarre. We have all been duped at one time or another and we need to improve our defences.
The answer is simple, continue your search for God, he has not abandoned you, he is waiting for you. Even more important, save your children. Don't let those impressionable young minds follow the progressive* frauds down that same path.
*progressive: I am elite and smart, you are stupid, therefore I will be your master
Obama Mocks Christian Faith
http://usataxpayer.org/?0033881580
Progressive Assault on Children
http://usataxpayer.org/?0040951310
Noobiekid was talking about the depression of 1920, NOT the great depression…I'd have to say that Noobiekid does have rudementary basic knowledge of it, 1redcent. Maybe you need to do the your research on the depression of 1920 before you tell someone else they "don't know a damned thing about it…sad to say." There is a link in the previous post, check it out!
sorry…I lost my train of thought and put "rudimentary basic"…can you say redundant?
here's a link…
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880
Great point!!! One sees that when dealing w/college prof's all the time. I have more respect for those that come right out and tell you they're a communist/socialist/BG/facist at the get-go, instead of doing what you described above.
So did I, so your support of him is wasted time and effort.
I know all about the depression of 1920, as well as the one of 1893 and many others; do YOU ?
Individualism v. Collectivism, Freedom v. Slavery. That' all there to it. Collectivism by any other name is still slavery to the government.
More government is regressive, not progressive.
[...] heart of government/debate as we know it. See it at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism site. Part One, Part Two, Part Three – coming soon I [...]
Janice Joplin would say learn to spell "lose".
[...] part one we discussed how there are only two forms of government. In part two we discussed the history of [...]
[...] Part 1: A Primer, Part 2: Foundation, Part 3: Execution [...]
I think the Platonic analogy is flawed because of the aspect of linear temporality associated with it by the author. The world of Ideals does not necessarily exist "in the future", it is just as likely to have existed in the distant past. In this sense, one may argue that progress does not exist and therefore neither limited nor big government should be pursued.
You say tomato, I say V-8, and some might say Fusion.
seems to me the conflict here is that most of us want big government in some things and limited government in others. I think government, for example, should be limited when it comes to a woman's womb but should get bigger in dealing with economic issues that could bankrupt the country. others want big government when it comes to wombs and small government when it comes to wealth. there are a million permutations, not just two with one being clearly evil.
[...] Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 [...]
Wonderful and clearly written article. I have recommended this to everyone. It says what it is. Thank you.
What is interesting is I don't see anyone that believes and or spouts BG who live in America wanting to move to one of those more established BG countries. Wonder why not? /sarc
I think you mean "dissimulate when any debate is attempted"
[...] The New Fascists: Part 1 – A Political Primer “There are only two forms of government. Every kind of government is a branch or variation of one of the two forms.” [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.