This is such a unique thing we possess, this free way of life. Power granted to the government by the consent of the governed, not taken by force. The default setting for societies has always been a brutal mash of exploitation, oppression and unfettered greed. Whether couched in religion, geography, or tribe, the strong have always ruled the weak, and the wily take their cut off the top.
But now we have leaders and laws chosen by process and debate, rather than the former staples of noble birth, graft, brute force, and intimidation.
To be sure, a fair measure of those same flaws remain in our politics and governance, but they are not the norm, and they’re usually driven out when discovered. This fact alone is enough to separate us from all previous attempts by man to bring order to human interaction.
So knowing this, why are so many in society willing to chuck it all in to forge ahead into a brave new world that looks and smells just like the fetid carcass of the cowardly Old World?
Why would intelligent people knowingly choose less freedom for themselves and their children?
Crudely put, it is because the idea of a fully free society with everyone making their own decisions simply chaps their asses. It is not enough for such people to be successful themselves; they must also have a hand in ordering the winners and losers amongst the rest of society.
So convinced are they of their own inestimable value, that they cannot conceive of a world that doesn’t need them. In their minds, they should be consulted before decisions are made; after all, look how successful they are.
Clearly anyone who doesn’t recognize this must be mentally defective, and we all know you don’t have to take seriously the ramblings of an imbecile.
But what happens when the self-absorbed decide that our laws and ways are really just anachronistic barriers to their progressive real-think? If you’re smart, you tremble for a moment, then gird yourself for a fight.
If you recall the puritan ethos that H.L. Mencken described as having the haunting feeling that someone, somewhere, is happy, then you easily understand the sensibility of someone who cannot be satisfied with his own success unless it involves dictating to others how they must succeed as well.
And not just any old success will do…it must be appropriate success. Success suited to one’s station and membership of an aggrieved group. (See affirmative action and virtually every other outcome-based folly of the Left.)
What sort of mind functions this way? Where do we find the bedrock of such a ego-centric philosophy?
Look first to human nature, and realize that with all our sophistication and technology, we still eat, crap, and fight much as we always have. We always will. Accept it. Madison said that if men were angels, no government would be needed.
Of course, we know men are no angels; so we must ask, who will govern the governors? Many actors have played this role. Religion has been a lodestar for our leaders for the better part of 150 years. Honor and national pride have, too.
But more than anything, the vision of our founders as evinced in the Constitution has been the greatest bulwark against both the busybody and the tyrant. Behind that magnificently crafted wall we have found refuge, and in its protective shade our nation has grown into the example that has slowly recast the world in its image.
I recall a conversation I had with a young coworker in the latter weeks of Obama’s campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My coworker then quite earnestly asked, “What’s so wrong with socialism?”
I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old man — my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his.
It eventually dawned on me that he really didn’t know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis?
He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialist collectivism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible with Socialism as the guiding principle.
In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark book (later released in abridged pamphlet form) “Road to Serfdom,” laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of the day.
With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan.
How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don’t. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone.
When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced.
A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This “fatal flaw” in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical, as to require the entire ideology be scrapped as unworkable.
Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state.
Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other.
The history of the twentieth century is littered with the remains of those who became “enemies of the state” for merely drawing attention to this flaw. As Von Hayek predicted, the socialist vision would not be achieved without bloodshed.
So this is the challenge we face. My young coworker had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn’t be rationalized — or better yet, blamed on others.
Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don’t assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics.
The Left will not willingly lay claim to the true legacy of socialism, so we will have to hang it around their necks. They have grown accustomed to shedding responsibility for the damage they have done, and are adept at shifting the blame. Traditional means of holding them to account are failing. Fellow travelers in the academy and media will not challenge even their most egregious lies, so howling about bias will gain us nothing.
If you doubt the effectiveness of the Left’s methods, ask any ten people under the age of forty whether Hitler and the Nazis were a product of left-wing or right-wing ideology. Their answers will reveal the frightfully high obstacle we face if we are to reclaim our national identity.
It is not enough that you know the truth. You alone are not likely to singlehandedly shape the outcome of an election. Everyone has to know the truth. We have to reclaim our younger generations from the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or it won’t be long before the wolf no longer needs the disguise. Note: This was written in late 2009. With the viable candidacy of an avowed socialist gaining steam, it is perhaps more timely now to note the wolf has indeed abandoned his disguise entirely.