How did we got where we are with the two party system?
Well let me just dive right in...
What we call Liberalism is a cousin to two of the most hated political parties in the world. What we call now call conservativism was once called liberal. What was called Progressive became Liberal and is now called Progressive again.
First of all despite what we have been told for years and years Bolshevism (Soviet Communism ) and Nazism/Fascism are not opposites. They are both perversions of Socialism. All these ideologies work the same way, they try to rile up the masses.
So real quickly let's define what socialism is. Socialism is basically when the government controls everyhing. Go rent the movie Demolition Man, it explains where I think we are headed better than anything else I have seen. Anyway we would all basically live and breathe for the State. We would be like an "ant colony". In a Socialist society people have traded their true Freedom for Security and government takes care of its' subjects like a giant baby sitter.
Once it reached a certain point there would be no end to what the Government would think it had business meddling with in our lives. What we eat, where we go, what we drive, when we drive, what we earn, what we watch on tv, what we listen to on the radio, what we see on the internet, how warm we keep our homes, if we have homes. Seriously, remember Animal Farm by George Orwell? Go read it, it is short.
Anyway, back to explaining the various political ideologies that derive from this particular brand of Totalitarian system. See Socialism is really no better than a dictatorship. Honestly, it is probably not as good as having a King.
Communicm, Nazismm Fascism and US Progressivism are all Ofshoots of Socialist Theory. The differences are in who each ideology casts as the hero and the villain. Communism is the Worship of Class (worker class). Nazism is Worship of the Race. Fascism is worship of the Country .
The rest is all just semantics. They are all just power grabs and they attract the same types of people for positions of power and the same type of followers. US Liberalism/Progressivism is Worship of (their version of) Fairness/Hatred of the Rich.
Now, before I go on, if you can see the truth in what I just said regarding the "lever" that these different brands of ideologies(class, race, nation) use to control people, and if you see the truth in what I said above about the Liberal Secular Progressives (Democrats generally) using the sense of fairness compassion and hatred of the rich as their lever they use to rile folks up, then think on this:
Class, Race, or Nation are relatively objective villains. You can't change race, it is constant, and you can't change nations, they are more or less constant; in the hisotorical sense Class is fairly constant too. The rest of the world does not think of class as purely along economic lines like the US does. Once you killed the Romanov's in Russia, or the Aristocracy of France you had taken care of the problem. Without getting too long winded... the genius of focusing on "the Rich" , is that is a relative scale. There is always someone richer than someone else. It can be made to be un-ending warfare. That is why Obama cannot define who is Rich. If they define it then they are held to a target. This way the target is mobile.
Michael Gold said, “when a cheese goes putrid, it becomes limburger and some people like it, smell and all. When a capitalist state starts to decay it goes fascist.” You could also say Communist, or Nazi. They are all the same. Just do not put a historical label on them.
Think of the Ideas or Ideaologies as Products. Think of the Labels as the Brand Name. Politicians change the brand name to sell the product when the brand name loses favor among the customers (citizens/voters/subjects). Socialism is the root ideology, When The Communist Manifesto was written what it described was what we call Socialism. Fascism, Communism (bolshevism), and Nazism are all just the different brands of what Marx and others have formulated. They were the chemists coming up with the secret incredients for their product.
To put it another way, Socialism is a Soft Drink. Cocal Cola was the original soft drink, and Coca Cola is the brand. Pepsi is another Brand of soft drink, tastes similar, but is different. RC cola is another soft drink, and still tastes like cola, but is still another brand. Now what would happen if for some reason the word Pepsi became associated with something that the public didn't like (you know some sort of marketing disaster or giant recall)... do you think that Pepsi would try to rebrand itself as something else? Like Zap cola? The product didnt change...just the name. Pepsi, Coke, and RC are all Colas and are somewhat interchangeable, but are all slightly different. Well, in the U.S. political world the favorite brand is Sam's Choice Cola, still a cola, but slightly different from Pepsi, Coke, and RC.
We have called it Liberalism and Progressivism, generally it is sold by Democrats. And it is basically another variety of Socialism.
Fascism, Communism, and Nazism are all nearly identical. And they are all nearly identical with Progressivism, they are just different by degrees.
First things first. What does Nazi mean? Did you know that Nazi is somewhat of an Acronym? It is German, short for Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party
Ok, what then does USSR stand for? The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) The USSR was a constitutionally socialist state that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991.
So at the heart of what we call Communism and what we call Nazis, they were really Socialists. That is what they called themselves. Nazi’s were National Socialists. That is what they started out as. The reason is because when these countries started Socialism was a product that was generally very well accepted among consumers. (kinda like Coca-Cola, used to be thought of as a health drink and now we know it makes us fat)
Google it if you want. Progressives in this country were enamored of both the Russian Revolution and the Italian Fascist Movement, but they did not think that the American public would buy into the term “Socialist” so they rebranded it "Progressivism". They were progressive, what could be better than Progress? Everybody is for Progress, Right? Well…Progress towards WHAT?
Socialism at its core is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state. “everything in the state and nothing outside the state” is what Mussolini said. Whatever brand of socialsim you prefer the first true invention and use of this "product" was not in Russia or Italy or Germany. Like most things in the twentieth century it was invented in the US. And Woodrow Wilson was the first dictator of this movement. There is ample evidence of this. I am hitting the high points. Wilson was a practitioner and priest of the "cult of expertise" (sound familiar, smartest guy in the room, only person for the job?) the notion that human society was just another part of the natural world and could be controlled by using the scientific method. One of Wilson’s favorite themes was "the advocacy of progressive imperialism in order to subjugate and thereby elevate lesser races".
I have two comments on that. The first is, how do you elevate someone by subjugating them? And second, he says races, I say you could say classes as well. He was also imperialistic; he thought our annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines was great because they were savages there anyway. Wilson along with the vast majority of Progressive Intellectuals believed that the increase in state power was akin to an inevitable evolutionary process. Wilson said, “we must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement and shall be content to realize his activity only in connection to the activity of the many”
HUH? Does that sound American? Not in the America I want to live in!
Wilson also said the essence of progressivism was that the individual “marry his interests to the state”
Well isn’t that just sweet?
Wilson was a follower of a guy named Herbert Croly, who was really enamored with a guy named Auguste Comte who was a French philosopher whose main claim to fame was the coinage of the word “sociology”. Maybe you have heard of that. Well Comte argued that humanity progressed in three stages and that in the final stage mankind would throw off Christianity and replace it with a new “Religion of Humanity” which married religious fervor to science (heard anyone lately talk about restoring science to its rightful place?) A Religion of Humanity is also called Secular Humanism.
The word "Secular" is defined as
- Worldly rather than spiritual.
- Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
If man is the highest authority then anything man decides to do is acceptable moral and right. This is called Moral Relativism. A good example of Moral Relativism is when the masses are supposed to pay their taxes, but the head of the US Treasury does not have to, because he is too smart. And everybody thinks that is ok. Another good example of it is when the President of the United States Lies under oath about receiving fellatio in the Oval Office, but he is found not guilty because everybody lies and every body gets fellated.
I will define Secular Progressivism/Liberalism, as: The worship of the human race as a means to remove people from their principles and faith, and to unite the masses against a cause [wealth] as a means to seize power and subjugate people"
I like this little gem from WWI: John Dewey had a philosophy of the “possibilities of war” Dewey was the philosopher over at the New Republic. He was infuriated at the pacifists who were against WWI who failed to understand the “immense impetus to reorganization afforded by this war” he wanted to go to war so he could reshape the country on the domestic front.
Wilson believed the same thing, “I am an advocate of peace but there are some splendid
Things that come to a nation through the discipline of war” Hitler would have readily agreed, he told Josef Goebbels that "This war...made possible the solution to problems that in normal times could never have been possible"
Back to Dewey, he was giddy that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom, we shall have to lay by our good-natured individualism and march in step” he thought if the war went well it would stop the “individualistic tradition” and convince people of the “supremacy of the public need over private possessions”
Wow that is great isn’t it? Heard anyone lately talk about how a “crises like this cannot be let go to waste, there are possibilities to get things done in a crisis” Rahm Emanual, Obama’s chief of staff. Hillary Clinton just this last week said almost the exact same thing in a speech she was giving in Europe.
Speaking of Hillary, she made this great philospphical statement that could have come straight out of Hitler's or Mussolini's mouth: "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society" she said this in 1993. I do not know about you but these kinds of statements are just creepy to me.
Liberals instinctively and automatically see war (or any moral equivalent to war, such as an economic crises or global warming, pretty much anything works) as an excuse to expand governmental control of everything.
Here is a nice little factoid for you : nearly the entire Liberal elite of government, including much of FDR’s brain trust had made a pilgrimage to Moscow to take admiring notes on the Soviet experiment. ...Remember the communists were our allies until after WWII.
Moving on to FDR. According to Harold Ickes, FDR’s interior secretary and one of the most important architects of the New Deal, Roosevelt said, “what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some of the things that were being done under Hitler in Germany, but we were doing them in an orderly way”
Oh so being organized makes it better? Eventually Ickes had to warn FDR that if he didn’t ease up people were going start “unconsciously grouping four names together Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Roosevelt”
..great…
Here is another similarity to our current crop of politicians and FDR, Herbert Hoover said “he spoke in generalities that everyone found agreeable at first and meaningless upon reflection, he is like a chameleon on plaid”
HISTORY LESSON
This will get confusing but I will do my best to explain first things first all the words mean different things and have meant different things throughout history. Left and Right change depending on what thing you are basing left and right from. Liberal and conservative mean different thngs at different times. “Progressive” in the United States has almost always meant what the rest of the world would call “Socialist” at the least and probably “Fascist” at most.
During the French revolution the people who sat on the left side of the legislative chamber were classical liberals they believed in small governmentt, power to the people, etc. basically everything we think of as Conservative now. During this time Conservative meant keeping things mostly as they were in France back then (Monarchy). Therefore the American Revolution was a classical liberal revolution but was not violent like the french revolution which used more or less socialist fear politics to achieve its’ goals.
Unlike the old Eurpoean nations the United States did not/does not have “class based” political parties. There was not the Labor Party and the Conservative Party. We do not have a house of Lords and House of Commons (although I think everyone in our Governemnt thinks they are Lords). The US had the Federalists, Whig, and Republican party which liked the rule by the British and were therefore conservative or for the staus quo of the United States at that time. For the most part prior to the Revolution our country was classically liberal when it cams to the economy (free market) but socially conservative. This would have been considered Liberal back then because for the most part Conservatives back then sided with the Crown (British Rule).
Thomas Jefferson was part of a political party called the Democratic Republican and so in this sense both current parties go back to Jefferson . Then this party split and the Republican part renamed itself the Whig party to evoke feelings of the american revolution which would have been considered a Conservative position by this time but was still for classically liberal in the sense it favored small government and a free economy. The Whigs believed in preservation of the union and strict interpretation of the constitution. This is the first party that appealed to ordinary voters and others as well. This party sort of dissolved over the issue of slavery and the anti slavery crowd moved to the new Republican party also called the Grand Old Party or GOP. The pro slave folks moved to the Democrat party. At this time the Democrat party was more socially conservative which at that time meant conserving slavery and was more or less the party of rich white men.
In the 1890s both parties realigned and Republicans became fiscally conservative, pro big business and for strong foreign policy.
During the early twentieth century Republicans became more like Progressives (meaning they were enamored of the Bolshevik Revolution and or Italian Fascism). Meaning that both parties in the U.S. at the time favored some sort of Socialism. The Democratic Party liked Communism and the Republicans seemed to favor Fascism. But neither party at that time was in favor of Capitalism.
Progressive is basically then and now the american brand of european socialism. actually it sought a "Third Way" (a huge buzzword of Italian fascism) between being liberal (in the classical sense) and conservative (in the tradition of the old right) . Heard of this lately? "we need to put behind us the politics of the past, no more Democrat or Republican. Into a new era of Bipartisanship" That would be our new President. That is another problem, if you do not know the playbook he is reading from you do not know what that statement means. It is almost like he talks in code.
Many in the early 1900s were enamored with the idea of Progessivism and Woodrow Wilson was more Liberal in the 21st century definition than anyone with the exception of Barack Obama. Wilson was actually inspirational to Mussolini. Read that again. Benito Mussolini looked up and admired Woodrow Wilson.
The communist revolution in 1917 scared both parties (Republicans and Democrats) but neither really ran toward classical liberalism, laissez faire free market ideas. BOTH moved Left but the Democrats moved further left and so the label "Left" was describing who was nearly Communist or and "Right" described and who was merely almost Fascist. TADA! this is where we have got the misinformed view that Fascism is a Rightwing philosophy!
During the 1920s the Republicans were: pro big business, for government regulation, and the Democrats were more for labor and farming but neither party was laissez faire or classical Liberal economically. Meaning anyone who identifies themselves as conservative today would have thought there were no differences between Democrats and Republicans back then. Really the parties were split more on a North-South basis, or maybe a split along class lines.
Herbert Hoover freely called himself a "Progessive" (the US brand of Socialism) Republican. But becasue the country was in a depression the public opinion turned against him and a Democrat candidate (FDR) was elected. FDR did not like the term "Progrssive" because he thought "Liberal" had a more historically palatable ring to it among US citizens but he was at least as Progressive or more so than Hoover. So in the 30s-40s the choice voters had was between Northern Big Government Leftists (Republicans) or Southern working Man Leftists (Democrats).
In the south there were still Democrats who were anti New Deal and anti FDR and they joined with the Libertarians and the old Fiscally and Socially Conservative Right to create the Conservative Coalition.
Meanwhile Northern Republicans who liked New Deal Politics joined the Democrats.
So the liberals became what we NOW call the Left or Liberals today which are increasingly calling themselves Progressives again.
And, what became the Neo-Conservative movement which is Classical Liberal with regard to government and Fiscally Conservative and Socially Conservative or even Libertarian leaning when it comes to Social Issues and EVENTUALLY turned into what Reagan, and Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh and I came to love.
Confusing ain't it?
I have been trying to classify where we are and where all these other policitical ideas and way of government fall into some sort of graphical representation. In the US we use Left and Right, but there are a lot of other variables. Reagan said there is no left or right only an Up and a Down That is a useful analogy. But total freedom and complete lack of government is Anarchy. Likewise if a government squeezes people too hard that leads to Anarchy as well. Cases in point. Mexico is a constitutional republic very similar in nature to the US, but the government is so corrupt they are teetering on Anarchy due to crime and corruption. The opposite of that is the old USSR or The Nationalist Socialist Republic of Germany (1939-1945) they squeezed their people and their economy until it failed and went into anarchy. So there are several different factors There is Economic Freedom, Moral Freedom (or control of morality), Social Freedom (or Political Freedom), And Religious Freedom. I have seen a lot of charts or graphs of how other people label the variousl political ideology. I do not see it in left, right, up, or down in a straight line, but on a curve or a circle.
So let me try to explain what I came up with, it may only make sense to me. But, to me this makes more sense than anything else. You have to take several different looks at this picture to see it the way I do.
First lets look at stability. The absolute most stable position on this graph is dead middle. Centrist. Now that may appeal to some people, but a true middle of the road position is always a compromise and where it really leads almost all the time it towards Progressivism and towards totalitarianism of the state (Communism or Fascism).
The farther you get from the middle the less Stable you are.
Straight UP is NO Government control of Economic or Social Freedom.
Straight down is complete strangulation of life by Government.
Note both roads lead to Anarchy and revolution.
As you move from the top to the right and downward it gradually becomes more fiscally and socially conservative, so straight right would be the maximum amount of conservativism while still maintaining stability. Likewise, straight left is the theoretical maximum amount of social and fiscal liberalism(big government) possible while still maintaining stability.
I think for most of our history we have been just outside of the center bubbly in the upper right quadrant of the stable government box. I would like to see us firmly in the Reagan conservative zone. Right at the edge of where Libertarians would like to be. Which would represent a small government, rule of law, belief in the constitution and yet still have as much Personal and Social Freedom as possible. Where I think we are heading in a rapid way is down and to the left. I would say we are teetering between the innermost box outside of center and full blown Progressivism. Right next door to totalitarian government.
