Wednesday, June 23, 2010

What Do You Get When Nationalists and Socialists Violate the Constitution?

The political right and left has been fighting each other tooth and nail for decades over the spoils of the emerging fascist state in our midst.

Polarization along Republican and Democrat party lines has not led to a stalemate, as traditional political theory might predict.  The abandonment of Constitutional limitations intended to check all forms of collectivism with the enshrinement of individual rights has led America not to a dangerous fork in the road, but to a convergence of nationalist and socialist policies culminating in a haphazard form of fascism.

It is not the argument of this article that those on the right and left intend to create a fascist state in America.  But both sides are engaging in a dangerous game of chicken.  The left is betting that the road to socialism is to guide capitalism through the death throes of fascism (viz. government control of property), leading to the destruction of private property.  The right is betting that its corporate sponsors can harness the state to hedge against risk and plunder the American public.  If each side continues unabated in violation of the Constitution, we will all likely find ourselves licking jackboots.

The modern right is essentially nationalist, while the modern left is almost thoroughly socialist. It is the sad state of affairs that America's political spectrum now makes the most sense if thought of in terms of pre-revolutionary France.  American conservatives should be thought of as Constitutionalists who endorse liberty, and therefore should not be classified on either the right or the left of the collectivist spectrum.

Drawing on our political framework, today's Republican party can be categorized and referred to as the political right, and the Democrat party, the political left.  This is a generalization only, and is not indicative of the degree of radicalism in each party.  The Democrat party is more radical in its degree of socialism than the Republican party is in terms of its nationalism (as opposed to patriotism, which in America includes reverence for the Constitution).

Both parties can be better understood if shot through the prism of turn-of-the-century progressive politics: The Republicans cut from the cloth of Teddy Roosevelt, and the Democrats, of Woodrow Wilson.  Progressivism can be seen as America's peculiar form of proto-fascism.

For all intents and purposes, the term "right" refers mainly to the Republican party, and the "left" predominately (though not exclusively) to the Democrat party.

Today’s right is comprised of nationalists who put up staged, phony fights on behalf of liberty and the Constitution, promote a police state in the name of "security," seek to export “democracy” to third-world hell-holes where the population has no grasp of the basics of a free society, spend like half-deranged lunatics, and battle hardest to garner perquisites for their corporate sponsors.

Today’s left is filled with lotus-chewing socialist moonbats who endorse wealth redistribution and suicidal economics, build crony coalitions using divide-and-conquer politics, oppose all forms of reasonable self-defense against terrorists, vilify and attack whites and Christians, and essentially war against the social freedom they purport most to stand for.

Whether through ideological affinity or mutual lust for power, the lack of the right and left's effective opposition against each other results in a perverse form of collaboration that is a recipe for disaster: Nationalists essentially cooperating with socialists.

Each side seems to have brokered a devil’s bargain: The right has winked to the left “give us war and national defense and we will give you social and domestic issues.” The Constitution is a punchline to both parties, and the joke’s on us.

There appears to be a convergence of right and left progressivism taking place in this country, and the American people are shocked and nearly paralyzed. Until recently most of us believed we lived in the best, freest nation on earth.  Now we are staring into the sunset upon the landscape of our nation's recent history, and what appeared to be a land of milk and honey is now covered in blood and shadow.  What happened?

The American people have been subjected to an incrementally escalating psychological warfare campaign carried out by cultural Marxists for decades.  As America was being built up on the right, mostly on militaristic grounds, the progressives were ransacking the culture and the economy.

While the capitalist economy was being imperceptibly undermined through institutions like the Federal Reserve and the graduated income tax, the leftist media conditioned people's perception of economic reality, namely, by vilifying free market capitalism.  Living at the future's expense through debt and the illusory "wealth creation" scheme of the Federal Reserve afforded us the luxury of psychological denial.

Cultural Marxists undertook the campaign decades ago because the American economy defied the predictions of traditional Marxists. Instead of industrialization and the advanced capitalist economy leading to decreasing wages and a diminished standard of living for workers, American capitalism lifted more people out of poverty than in any country in the history of the world.

Socialists needed a way to defeat America as a shining example of the failure of Marxist theory to predict the improvement of the overwhelming majority of people's lives under capitalism.

The steady erosion of the economic base began with the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, a central banking system comprised of a consortium of private banks, and the establishment of a graduated income tax. These were two planks straight out of the Communist Manifesto, instituted under the "progressive" Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

With the progressives' establishment of national tax laws and private-public institutions such as the Federal Reserve (and later Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac), the state was able to violate private property, which cordons off and harnesses self-interest for the good of the economy as a whole.

They were then able to degrade the economy from within over decades through the Fed's devaluation of the currency, which benefits Wall Street at the expense of those further along in the circulation of the money supply (money is most valuable when it is first introduced into the economy).

This scheme provided perverse incentives for the pursuit of wealth in the private sector, and led to increasing burdens on the American family through incremental dollar devaluation.

With these institutions established, the Marxists then set out to convince Americans that all the economic disruption and greed around them was the fault of monolithic "free market capitalism." It would be well to note that even the Soviet Union and Maoist China had forms of currency, that didn't make them "capitalists."

After the 1929 stock market crash, the "progressives" seized the day to condemn capitalism, in the sense that it stood as a barrier to the power of the state to "do good" for the American people.

Never mind that history damns the actions of government in both the Hoover and FDR administrations as fruitless and an obstruction to any economic resurgence along the lines of the 1920 natural recovery.

The Federal Reserve gave the game away when after the stock market crash in 1929 it contracted the money supply by raising interest rates, in direct contravention of its charter. This exacerbated the deteriorating economic conditions, made cash "king," and allowed big banks to gobble up smaller insolvent banks like guppies in a small pond.

After the banks had consolidated control, the Fed rapidly expanded credit, which led to yet another crash in 1937.

Perhaps one can do no better to sum up the economic policies of the ever Great(er) Depression than to quote FDR's Secretary of the Treasury Hans Morgenthau:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. After eight years we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot."

But one of the most powerful images that persists in the public mind is that of FDR "saving America" from the hardship wrought by capitalism, "the god that failed." FDR is consistently ranks among scholars in the top five presidents of all time, along with men like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Ronald Reagan gets no more than a nodding acknowledgment.

After the Great Depression, the cultural Marxists had the exemplar they needed to proceed without abandon in deriding "capitalism" as the source of all our country's woes. The hunger and poverty of the Depression years provided all the imagery the leftists needed to paint any and all opposition to state interventionism as heartless, cruel, and even moronic.

Side by side with the civil rights movement, which Republicans supported and many Democrats opposed, cultural Marxists backed the statists in their drive to build a welfare state and to undertake large national projects.

The result, over time, was increasing government interference, the disruption of markets and the perverse incentives provided by regulations and tax loopholes, escalating spending, debt, inefficiency and waste. All of this, of course, was "capitalism's" fault.

After Goldwater was demonized as a "Nazi" for advocating free markets (economists, try to figure that one out), the man who would become most hated and vilified by the leftist press would be Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was hated for the powerful manner he was able to positively articulate the greatness of America, including free market capitalism. By the time of the 1980s, however, many leftists were convinced that advocating private property and the rule of law was a plot to fortify corporations' stranglehold on the economy.

Yet both the nationalist right and the socialist left have removed the barriers that were designed to keep corporate influence in its place. The media abrogated its responsibility as watchdogs for the American people and become corporatist lapdogs who never saw a big government program they didn't like. Notice not a single mainstream media organization opposed the bailouts, as long as it was their man who was doling out the public treasury.

The press, increasingly undermined by corporations who enjoyed the privileges reaped from fascistic government programs, have become transmission belts for corporate welfare and big government advocacy. What appears to Americans as "left" in this country is often fascism disguised as "progressivism" or "soft socialism."

Now that the American people are catching on, through alternative media sources such as the Internet and "right-wing" radio (i.e. any radio host who promotes responsibility, liberty, and the rule of law) the media has to ridicule conservatives as "kooks," "lunatics," and "fringe" elements. This in a predominately center-right country that gets on an instinctive level that what the government is doing is harmful and self-defeating.

Though the left's cultural Marxist tactics are outdated and people are catching on to the fascist game going on, there is a danger that the push back may be too little, too late. Nationalists (neo-conservatives) and socialists (progressives) seem to be playing a game of musical chairs, accumulating governmental power for a present or future dictator within the bounds of each politician’s respective party, building a welfare-police state that never seems to gets rolled back. The results, well, let's just say that those aware of history have seen this all before.

Though the history books refer to them as simply “the Nazis,” the party’s full translated name is the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Imagine something like neo-conservatives, RINOs, and progressives marching in lock-step towards recreating 1930s Germany. This is not just hyperbole, read the Nazi party platform.

The hacks in the media conducting psychological warfare on any Americans who oppose big government, with false allegations, ridicule, and stereotyping, need a history lesson if they believe for a minute that what this government is doing is consistent with "hope and change." You see, this has all been tried before, and most people know it.  The difference is that it was done by one party, and not two.

The media will continue to call conservatives crazy and racists and insist that we are ignorant, delusional, and dangerous for opposing big government led by any statist; be his name Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, or Barack Obama. But we are for liberty, we are for the Constitution, and we are not fooling around.

The past four presidents have not for stood for liberty or the Constitution.  President Bush Sr. decreed a ban on offshore oil drilling that would make any radical environmentalist proud.  President Clinton promoted the police state through support for the electronic spy project Echelon.  Bush Jr. did not just pass the Patriot Act, he created a massive new entitlement program with the prescription drug package Medicare Part D.  President Obama is not only recklessly spending America into oblivion, he has continued the Patriot Act, turned the Department of Homeland Security against the civilian population, continued the program of extraordinary rendition, and endorsed the assassination of terrorists, even if American citizens.  And he has done it all under the banner of creating "hope and change."

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is our only guide to controlling both the political right and left.  What we have come to learn in our time is that neither document is self-enforcing. Transforming a nation founded on freedom and liberty to a predatory police state would indeed be a "change." The only hope it has inspired for the majority of us, however, is that the American people are finally waking up and are poised to put government back in its box, for our own good and that of our posterity.

3 comments:

Reaganx said...

=The right is betting that its corporate sponsors can harness the state to hedge against risk and plunder the American public. =
=battle hardest to garner perquisites for their corporate sponsors.=

I think corporate influence on the right is exaggerated. The demonization of corporations is a bit of a populist myth. After all, the “populus” itself (the source of populism) may be a more pernicious influence on pols than corporations.
Btw, as to the export of “democracy,” what’s your view on isolationism and interventionism? You haven’t become an isolationist and critic of all foreign engagements, have you?

Reasonsjester said...

No, I'm not an isolationist. I just don't think nation-building with half-ass police measures works. If you have an enemy, crush him and force the population to cease hostile activities - or else.

About corporations, if you follow major banks and industrialists' campaign contributions, you can find links between certain politicians and preferential treatment. Many regulations impose steep compliance costs that strangle smaller competitors of major corporations, who have larger legal teams and lobbyists in Washington. For example, JP Morgan Chase (the bailouts), Goldman Sachs (bailouts), Dole (subsidies), the corn-ethanol lobby, sugar producers (tariffs) and associated companies like Archer Daniels Midland, and other examples. On the other hand, many corporations and industries get hammered: RJ Nabisco (tobacco), domestic oil companies - "windfall profits," and others, like beverage companies in some some states (sugar tax), so I'm not arguing that the corporate class has "captured the state." There are various cross-cutting interests and politicians coalition build with different ones and the fight for legislation that impacts corporations differently.

Reaganx said...

Ok, granted, but - as I said - stylistically such language is a bit populist. You see, there’s this populist strain in American discourse, with slogans like “Fuck Big Government” and “Fuck Big Business” being very popular among the masses. Corporations have historically been vilified not so much because of the bailouts but because of the erroneous popular idea that everything “big” should be opposed. But there’s nothing wrong with corporations per se. I’d even say - the bigger the better.
And one of the most vicious kinds of corporation is the democratic majority itself.