Before we start, let’s understand why the MSM is waxing philosophical on this. Whenever leftist regimes fail, the MSM always ponders if the “real” problem isn’t that the world is broken. This is why at the end of the Carter years, you saw all these articles about the US being ungovernable and “too large to be run by one man.” This is a leftist self-defense mechanism to help them avoid the fact that they failed, and it’s no different this time.
This time, the left has concluded that there is something wrong with Democracy itself because supposedly (1) it can’t solve problems and (2) it doesn’t lead to content citizens. The left bases this on the struggles it has had fixing the world economy, getting credit for making our lives better with Obamacare, passing their agenda like getting the public to agree to tax hikes or sacrificing to stop
But is there really? Well, no.
The first thing to note is that Democracy isn’t an instant process. In other words, it is wrong to assume that Democracy works like a machine which spits out a solution when you turn it on. Democracy is a process that can take years to find a solution and can take many twists and turns getting there. In that regard, it’s like the stock market. The market doesn’t zero in on the right price and stay there, it gets there little by little, often overshooting in either direction, but generally getting it right over time. Democracy is the same thing... it can be very wrong in the short term, but generally finds the right solution over the long term.
So anyone expecting a simple, instantly correct solution from Democracy will always be disappointed. Yet, this is what the left premises these arguments upon. Even worse, the left has wrongly defined its own desires as right. Basically, its argument is that “we are offering the right things... the public is resisting... hence, the public is wrong... and since the public can stop us in a Democracy, Democracy doesn’t work.”
This kind of thinking is how you end up supporting Hitlers and the such. If you believe this chain of logic, then dictators offer the promise of cutting to the chase and imposing “the right” solutions immediately. By comparison to these kinds of thinkers, Democracy seems slow and offers a high risk of never getting to the right place. But this chain of logic is wrong. Just because you think something is good for everyone doesn’t mean that you are right. And that is the key difference between Democracy and every other system. In a Democracy, you need to convince the public that you are right, i.e. you need to win them over to get your way. The result is a forced intellectual rigor that is much more likely to make you (1) find a genuine solution to a real problem, (2) work out all the flaws and defects in your idea, (3) obtain broad public support, which will help implement the idea, and (4) consider the benefits and harms to a wide swath of the public, which means you are more like to keep making society better rather than cause negative distortions.
A centralized government is never forced to go through this. A centralized government simply does what the handful of leaders think is right. The result is that they don’t consider the effects on most people, they are never presented with a need to work through any of the problems their ideas raise, and they lack public support, which means they will face public resistance.
As a result of this, Democracies are more stable because they do require broad public support. They are more likely to work for the benefit of the majority of the public. They are more likely to implement effective ideas as well because there is a competition of ideas, and as we all know, there is no better way to find the best solution than competition because it focuses people on what matters, it makes them put forward their best ideas and best arguments, and it creates an adversarial system that gives the opponents a chance to point out all the flaws which can then be fixed. And they are more likely to have broad public support, which means they will face limited resistance.
You don’t get any of that in any non-Democratic system.
It is no surprise that the American public is most upset about four things: (1) Obamacare, because it was steamrolled over them without any public input, (2) financial reform (all the way back to TARP), because it was done in secret and forced on them, (3) the Federal Reserve’s QE programs, because they were done in secret, and (4) the lack of jobs, because no genuine solutions have been offered. It’s also no surprise that the biggest hot button issues of the past 40 years have been foisted on the public by the courts. Unless you let the public work the problem out amongst themselves, you will never reach a long-term solution.
Finally, the idea that people aren’t content is wrong thinking as well. The lack of contentment is not a sign that Democracy is a failure, it is a clear sign that the current course is the wrong one. It is a sign that the public is rejecting the current solutions being offered and feels that the current leadership isn’t capable of offering solutions they will like. Said differently, it is a repudiation of the leadership, not an indictment of the style of government.
Thoughts?
39 comments:
Spot on! I get particularly irked when the left goes on about congressional gridlock, which is their favorite evidence of broken democracy. Especially since it takes two to dance The Tango D.C..
As a side note: it's pretty much doctrine on the left that Hitler belongs to conservatives for reasons that are very... Thus, there is no threat of totalitarianism from the left. Joseph Who?
Thanks tryanmax!
The left has done a magnificent job of re-branding Hitler as right wing, even though everything about him belongs on the left. I wonder at times how they pulled that off so completely?
In terms of gridlock, notice that gridlock is only a problem when it blocks leftist ideas. If it blocks conservative ideas, then it's all part of the democratic process.
Let me add, for that reason, I don't take the left's complaints about gridlock as at all serious. Instead, I take them as tactical. I also take the "Democracy doesn't work" argument (which the left engages in from time to time) as wishful thinking which exposes their true stripes.
I got into an online argument about who owns Hitler. The "scholarly" stance is that fascism is somehow the opposite of communism. This despite every critical analysis of fascism describing it as essentially radical centrism--then of course concluding otherwise. Also, it's apparently dogma now that nationalism, isolationism, protectionism, militarism, jingoism, industrialist, authoritarianism, and command economics (not to mention general bigotry) are all provinces of the right. And if none of that suits you, Hitler was all uptight with his uniforms and secret police and stuff. He'd never make it in a commune.
the argument about the merits of a "benevolent dictatorship" goes back as far as the notion of democracy. Even if one could assume for a moment that a dictator might make a decision that is just yet unpopular, we still have the problem of lack of freedom. A "nice" or benevolent dictator is nonetheless a dictator. Now our system was designed to be a representative democracy. We elect people whose judgement we trust because it would be inefficient to "vote" on everything. Our constitutional framers had the wisdom to put in checks and balances to keep us safe from creeping loss of freedom. We are all guilty of feeling frustrated that "our side's policies" never get a fair chance because the loyal opposition undermines. But in the end, as you suggest, it is the only way to get it right even if it takes more compromise, effort, and time.
p.s. I haven't been as attentive to national media as of late so I didn't really notice this trend from the libs, though I have no doubt it is in full bloom as you point out. Any articles in particular that caused you to do this post?
I agree with you totally, Andrew. What I find really funny and frustrating it that when the left was mercilessly hounded Bush and the Republicans/TP'ers/Righties THAT was Democracy in action! When the right mercilessly pounds Obama and the Democrats/Progressive/Lefties THAT's the Fall of the Roman Empire and it's Run...Run...We are DOOMED! Ask any Bush basher and they will swear that they never did ever. They always treated Bush with respect because he was the President unlike Obama bashers who are racists...
Also here is the reason I see for tagging Hitler to Republican/Conservatives...most Jews are Democrats (for now anyway) Neither do many Democrats/Liberals make the connection that Stalin was a Communist who slaughtered 20+ million people. But then these are the same people who do not connect Kennedy or Johnson to Vietnam either.
tryanmax, I've had similar arguments and it usually gets down to something truly stupid like "Hitler was racist and the right is racist, so he's on the right." That of course ignores the fact that (1) excluding racism, everything about him fit perfectly on the left and (2) the left is much more racist than the right, they just say they aren't as they act in racist ways.
As an aside, the idea of Hitler and communism being opposites... they weren't. And the reason they fought so hard is that they were nearly identical philosophies fighting for supremacy.
Jed, I agree completely. The idea of the benign dictator goes back to Ancient Greece, and it is tempting in the sense of efficiency so long as you believe that the dictator will only do smart, good things. But then, we know that's not true. We know that mistakes will be made even if the dictator is entirely angelic (which he won't be). And as you note, no matter how you cut it, it's still force. To implement decisions that people don't accept automatically means force... and force is immoral and usually leads to bad results.
In terms of articles, there have been many. I do provide one link at the start of the article.
Bev, That is one thing I truly despise about the left -- that they simply change reality in their heads to deny the nasty things they do and then to make up charges against their political opponents. It's like arguing with the delusional and with liars.
That's an interesting point about the Jewish connection. I think the bigger issue though is just that the left disclaims all of its bad actions. That's why Nixon started Vietnam, Republicans (not FDR) interned the Japanese (ignore the Germans and Italians), the Republicans caused slavery when they were Democrats, all these leftist shooters must be right wing crazies, Hitler was a right winger, Stalin and Mao were not really leftists, the failures of liberalism are the result of Republicans not fixing the problems,etc. Basically, the left is like a giant child that will accept no responsibility and will blame all others for its own failures and lack of satisfaction.
In Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism, he presents the history of fascism and shows its rise from progressivism in the early part of the 20th as the liberal intellectual's path to utopia. It was a liberal darling up to WWII and HG Wells himself coined the term, "Liberal Fascism," as a desirable socio-political state of existence. Goldberg goes on to demonstrate the admiration our liberal aristocracy held for the rise of the Third Reich for it's facist solutions.
Then, the Holocaust.
After the extent of the horror became known and indiputable, the libs and progs couldn't back pedal away fast enough. Rather than bear the stigma, they chose to use their offices in literature and academia to assign it to their opponents.
When you think of it, it's bizarre to have communism and socialism at one end of the political scale and fascism at the other, when the three systems are nearly identical siblings.
I think the right side of the scale ends with libertarianism. After that, we're all Grizzly Adams (look it up, young 'uns).
Btw, I recommend Goldberg's book.
Funny, too, isn't it, that the Left endlessly decries nuclear proliferation and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet never seems to tie FDR/Truman to it? It just sorta spontaneously happened (like those internment camps)... even though they are the only presidents who actually utilized nukes, and JFK was the only one during the Cold War who came close to actually using them against the Soviets. And yet, they still blow a gasket about Reagan once joking about using them.
I have several friends on Facebook who are pretty left-wing, and something I've noticed lately is that, while they, of course, hate Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Chaney to the core, they've been mostly quiet about them for awhile. But in the last week or so, they've been linking to articles and things that basically "prove" that Nixon/Reagan/Bush (take your pick) was the "worst president ever". He's never named, but I'm detecting some defensiveness about Obama in this, as well as a lack of a clear, current Republican front-runner they can use as a focal point for hate and blame for Obama's failures (Palin remains a favorite punching bag, but is nothing but a celebrity/pundit now, so doesn't quite scratch their itch anymore, and that's palpable).
Great article. Democracy allows for "strange bedfellows" not to mention "sausage making". Democracy can be ugly and messy but not bloody like a dictator.
A little off topic but if you haven't read Paul Ryan's Editorial in this last weekend's Wall Street Journal, I encourage you do find it. Finally, a republican that has come out against using unhelpful black and white terms like givers and takers.
It must have struck a chord with the left because they seem to be screaming all over the place about how stupid and outdated his ideas are and then rehash their old standbys of raising minimum wage and Head Start programs.
I agree that democracy is the best system out there but nobody's a fan of democracy when they are on the losing side. People on both sides of the political spectrum care a lot more about outcomes than process.
Democracy is wonderful when you have power and your policies are in place, its a terrible thing when you lose (as Obama and the Democrats are currently doing) and the other guy's policies are in place (we're not there yet).
Once a side loses then they start going on about people 'voting against their own interest' or being 'low information' or what have you.
Thank God and the Founding Fathers that we are not a democracy, we are a republic. It's not broken, the morons running it are. We need to get rid of them, pronto. Did you know that the Athenians were voting on whether or not to go to war while the Spartans were coming over their walls?
Andrew, I don't remember who said it, but I remember a quote about all the Fascists and Communists were fighting about in Spain was the color of their armbands.
People on both sides of the political spectrum care a lot more about outcomes than process.
Anthony - that is so true. But I will add that the elected representation used to at least give the outward appearance of working for a consensus with some vague sense of statesmanship and state craft. Now, it is just "Us" against "Them" and no one really cares about consensus. That comes from the top. If Obama can't learn to work WITH his "opposition" how can any of them expect that "the people" will do it?
I think part of it comes from the fact that the Fascists in Italy and Spain were smart enough to ally themselves with the Catholic Church, something made easier by the Spanish Republicans decision to execute over 6,000 Catholic clergy (priests, nuns, etc.) in what was called the Red Terror. That lead many conservative Catholics to support Francisco Franco and the Nationalists.
The fascists operated by presenting themselves as a third way between Communism and laissez-faire capitalism. "We are the sons of bitches who can keep the communists out of power," in effect. Conservatives in Germany backed them to keep the Communists out of power.
And in the Cold War the US supported several fascist regimes.
Bev,
I suspect the problem is that total victory is always just around the corner nowadays. I remember in the 80's and early 90's Democratic dominance of the legislature was a fact of life. Of late the legislature has changed hands repeatedly.
Why compromise if the next election a bunch of people who think exactly like you do might come to power and allow you to pass 'pure' legislation and put in judges who think exactly like you do?
KRS, Let me second your recommendation for Goldberg's book. He does an excellent job of debunking this idea that fascism is a right-wing philosophy. And I agree with your take. If you look at the 1920s and 1930s, you see tons of American liberals lining up to praise fascism and recommend that we try it. It's only after the war that they turn against it.
P.S. I loved Grizzly Adams.
Backthrow, I see that all the time too -- bad things done by leftist heroes just sort of happened without anyone causing them. But at the same time, they just know that conservatives would have done those things if they could have. It's delusional.
I too am seeing a lot of defensiveness lately and lots of attempts to shift the focus back to Bush.
Thanks Koshcat! Exactly. Democracy isn't always pretty, but it does eventually get to the right answer and it does so without bloodshed. Dictators always end in blood.
Koshcat, I'll look for that. Paul is doing a lot of things that are upsetting the traditional apple carts on both sides. I've been largely impressed with him.
Anthony, That's true, but in a well-run democracy, people still accept the outcomes and generally just end up working harder or changing approaches to win the public back... the competition for ideas. The problem really only arises when people think the system is rigged.
Critch, In the modern parlance, Democracy and Republic are largely interchangeable because few countries are small enough to allow direct democracy but "democracy" has become the generic word for "voters make decisions combined with rule of law."
The quote I always heard was "The only difference between a good fascist and a good communist is the color of the shirt."
Bev, The art of political sustainability is to make everyone feel like you gave their ideas a fair shot even as you totally ignore what they want.
Kit, I think that helped. Fascism sold itself as the direct opponent of communism, and thereby became known as "right wing" even though it was substantively similar to communism.
Kit, Andrew, et al. To piggyback on what you've stated, the left also ignores that Hitler and the fascists more or less strong armed institutions like the church and industry into following their agenda. I'm dubious to even suggest that business or religion are even points on the left/right spectrum for a host of reasons.
Another thing I've noticed is that the left has generally taken to branding anything they don't like as right-wing or conservative. This virtual free-for-all is new compared to the rest of what we're talking about, I'd say. But it is the logical result of decades of revisionism that branded every failed progressive experiment as right wing. The only reason they grudgingly accept Stalin and Lenin as their own is because it still would seem ridiculous to cast them over. But mark it, just as they snatched Lincoln as their own, they'll eventually cast off the Soviets. (And probably appropriate Reagan, too.)
If you want to get an idea about how closely fascism is related to communism/socialism watch the film adaptation of Webber's musical Evita. Evita and Juan Peron pride themselves on being supporters of the workers and descamisados, which means "shirtless", i.e., poor, blue-collar workers.
The chorus of "A New Argentina" chanted by the pro-Peronist mob from the movie:
"A new Argentina, the workers' battle song
A new Argentina, the voice of the people
Rings out loud and long"
The stage production is even more explicit:
"Nationalisation of the industries that the foreigners
control
Participation in the profits that we make
Shorter hours
Higher wages
Votes for women
Larger dole
More public spending
A bigger slice of every cake"
By the way, these things, especially nationalization of foreign-owned industry, are being pushed by the current President of Argentina, Christina de Kirchner, who holds speeches next to a photo of Evita Peron and often compares herself to Evita. Oh, de Kirchner was also praised by Oliver Stone in his documentary on South American left-wing presidents/dictators South of the Border.
By the way, de Kirchner's policies have had the effect of ensuring that no one is investing in Argentina. Its too dangerous, you might be nationalized or even prosecuted for whatever reasons her cronies pull out of their behinds.
Argentina's economy is in the crapper. So every once in a while she rants about "Las Malvinas" (the Falklands) to distract from what is happening.
I don't see much of a difference between dictators no matter whether they claim to be communists or fascists or whatever. However, both conservatives and liberals have been friends of dictators who say the right things or have the right enemies (nods towards Putin and Castro, similar men with very different admirers and detractors).
tryanmax, I've noticed that too. It seems that the left has taken to defining any bad thing they can think of as a "right wing/conservative" trait. It's ridiculous.
Kit, Ultimately, left and right are useless terms because they don't have specific meaning. We should be more careful and speak about how much power the person is trying to concentrate.
Anthony, That's true, but being friends with isn't the same as advocating their philosophy.
I just stumbled upon a 1940 review by George Orwell ofMein Kampf. Here's the money quote:
"For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism.
"Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectable after all."
Orwell asks his readers to gaze between the lines somewhat--probably a bigger ask of present audiences than of contemporary ones. But if as revered a political thinker as he calls out the conflation of Nazism and conservatism as a sham from the start, it strikes quite a blow at modern leftist claims. That said, Orwell in particular would probably not be surprised in the least at how that self-deception has persisted.
tryanmax, That's a great find. In a 1930s article, Time similarly blasts people who claim that Hitler isn't really socialist. They make a great point about the state basically owning all farms and most businesses.
Post a Comment