The antidote to anti-American indoctrination is to keep proving, with facts and reason, the unique advantages of American society compared to other past or present civilizations. This will expose the double standard of anti-Americanism, which demonizes democracy’s imperfections but condones oppressive regimes’ crimes against humanity. It would significantly broaden and deepen children’s patriotic instruction in school. In college, instead of Marxist pseudo-science offered with a hefty price-tag, students would benefit from a rigorous training in American history and foundational philosophy contrasted with other political, economical, and social systems since ancient times and across the globe.
Educating people about America’s time-honored virtues as compared to the rest of the world will provide a much-needed frame of reference—a historical and geographical perspective that will give us a 20/20 vision of how good we have it. It will arm us with solid knowledge—with the unshakable realization that we cannot equate the flaws of a free country with the unfathomable atrocities of tyrannical governments. It will pierce the veil of cancel-culture groupthink and uncover its totalitarian core.https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2020/11/why-i-love-america/
Given the expanding role of government and erosion of individual liberty that occurs under both fascism & socialism, and the murderous history of each, why is communism/collectivism so much more palatable than National Socialism?
While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris go on and on about leadership we should look back to leadership lessons from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address.
Harris says she wants a mandate, yet Jefferson understood the country was a republic, not a democracy. In the Constitution, there are no provisions for claiming a governing mandate; claiming to have a mandate based on a majority vote, Jefferson would say violates a “sacred principle” and makes you an oppressive tyrant:
“Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Many have pointed out that today’s progressives behave like “Medieval Inquisitors.” Jefferson pointed to political intolerance as “despotic” and as “wicked” as religious intolerance:
Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.
So, what should government do? Jefferson was clear:
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
In his address, Jefferson didn’t promise a single new program, but he explored the principles by which he would lead:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies…
Welcome to another edition of Friday’s Philosophical Foray beyond Healthcare! Bruce Thornton examines the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville to illuminate “The wages of modernity’s technocratic hubris.”
“When it comes to America’s political order, no commentator today has yet come close to the brilliance of Alexis de Tocqueville, who was astonishingly prescient in pointing out the dangers inherent in the democracy he so admired.
“the ablest men . . . are rarely placed at the head of affairs.” With the citizens’ attention focused on their private affairs and necessity to make a living, “it is difficult for [them] to discern the best means of attaining the end,” which is “the welfare of the country.” Hence the voters’ “conclusions are hastily formed from a superficial inspection of the more prominent features of a question.” As a result, “mountebanks of all sorts are able to please the people, while their truest friends frequently fail to gain their confidence.”
This description obviously rings true today, in our age of the “low-information voter” and the multiple information platforms that promote the “superficial inspection” of sound-bite reporting that highlights only the politicized and emotionally charged “prominent features” of any issue.
“The people, surrounded by flatterers, find great difficulty in surmounting their inclinations; whenever they are required to undergo privation or any inconvenience, even to attain an end sanctioned by their own rational calculation, they almost always refuse at first to comply.”
And they are egged on by special interest groups like AARP that lobby politicians (“flatterers”), especially Democrats, who always champion expanding redistributionist programs rather than reforming them. Here, too, Tocqueville was prophetic:
“The power of the majority is so absolute and irresistible that one must give up one’s rights as a citizen and almost abjure one’s qualities as a man if one intends to stray from the track which it prescribes.”
That description fits Congress no matter which party is in control, and explains why nothing is being done to address this threat to our economic well-being.”
One of the most fascinating discussions I’ve ever heard about socio-economic & socio-political issues.
Proof that honest discussions, which generate better understanding, can happen when we view different opinions as coming from different vantage points rather than as “the opposition.”
“That side is in opposition to the violent, authoritarian thugs of the right and of the left. If we regain our faith in what we already have, there’s no reason to choose between rival siblings competing to rule over the ruins of everything that’s worthwhile on behalf of their illiberal family.”
“Sooner or later… one has to take sides—if one is to remain human,” Haider writes, quoting a character from Graham Greene’s The Quiet American. “The liberal center has to heed the same warning,” Haider adds. But the character Haider quotes is a member of Vietnam’s Communist party—which killed “probably about 1,040,000″ people in the post-Vietnam War period, after it came to power over the united country, as estimated by the late Prof. R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii…That’s an unpalatable side to pick in any situation.”
Fascism’s distinguishing characteristic is a “mixed economy.” Unlike socialists and communists who seek to abolish private business, fascists are content to let business remain in private hands. Instead, fascists use regulations, mandates, and taxes to control business and run (and ruin) the economy. A fascist system, then, is one where private businesses serve politicians and bureaucrats instead of consumers. Does the modern American economy not fit the definition of fascism?
Obamacare is an example of fascism that is often mislabeled as socialism. Obamacare did not create a government-run “single payer” system as would exist under socialism. Instead, Obamacare extended government control over health care via mandates, regulations, and subsidies. The most infamous part of Obamacare – the individual mandate – forces individuals to purchase a product from a private industry.
The true path to real free markets, peace, and individual liberty starts with rejecting the bipartisan authoritarianism in favor of the non-aggression principle.