This is the second in a series of articles that will help us better understand the underlying principles of the Constitution and the political climate in which we live. Part One in this Series is Constitution in Peril.
To facilitate a better understanding of the key terms in this article, the reader can scroll down to the bottom and read the definitions.
By the end of World War II, the exhausted Europeans hated and feared fascism and were ready to accept a drastic turn to the left. With this natural reaction to Nazi Germany, they swung with the pendulum clear to the other side of the political spectrum to socialism (especially in Eastern Europe). Yet, the movement away from fascism turned out to be just an illusion.
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela led the way to the socialist left in Latin America and the trend is quickly spreading. This is fueled by a reaction to a perception that the United States has become a fascist nation that is trying to spread its tyranny throughout the world. Islamo-fascists, strangely enough, are also spreading this idea. Others point to the rise of social liberalism in this country as the true danger. Which accusation is correct? Where does the true danger lie? To have a real grasp of this issue it is crucial to have a clear understanding of how the political spectrum really works and what government is supposed to do.
The winds of extremism are blowing and people who are not well grounded are moving to the far ends of the spectrum. This is creating a polarization that threatens to rip our nation in two and is making it easy for our enemies to foment distrust of America with the rest of the world. The picture of our culture that is represented by Hollywood and in the press is making it easier for critics of the U.S. to distort who we really are especially since the political views of the silent majority are not widely disseminated.
First, let us look at the traditional representation of the political spectrum and afterward, we will illustrate how it actually works. Next we will discuss the justification behind the extremist views, and finally, we will look at how we are being affected by manipulation by the power elite, and what we can do about the problem.
Understanding the Political Spectrum
Traditionally the American Democratic Party, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism etc are placed on the left with the ultimate left being anarchy (true communists wouldn’t need government according to Marx).
On the right would be the American Republican Party, Conservatism, Capitalism, Fascism, and Libertarianism. The ultimate in this direction is also anarchy.
Somewhere along the way to anarchy on both sides of the spectrum is totalitarianism. We see that in the Dictatorship of the proletariat on the left and in fascism on the right with Stalin and Hitler respectively, being prime examples.
The Real Picture
The political spectrum is in actuality not a line but is a circle. The four colors represent the ideological extremes, which meet at both the top and bottom with Totalitarianism and Anarchism. I don’t know of any examples of true communism or the ultimate ideal of Libertarianism but I have used Nazi Germany and the former USSR as examples that people are familiar with.
Those who gain power, whatever their ideology, almost always end up dedicated first to a retention or solidification of that power. The Nazi party name after 1920 was “The National Socialist German Workers’ Party” (English translation that is). Just from the title it would be hard to tell if the party was fascist or communist. The difference between the socialism that is a part of communism, and that which is part of fascism is important to understand. With communism, as in leftist socialism, there is the idea that the common man holds the power and all the wealth should be equally distributed (or redistributed). Representatives of the people are placed in political positions to maintain this (re)distribution. With fascism, the national identity is everything. The state holds the power and owns everything. The end result is almost identical. The people who end up in control become more interested about their own power base than they are for the ideology. Ideological lip service is the tool used to retain power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
From the above, we can see the brilliance of a government founded on a balance of powers and upon crucial freedoms like speech and the right to bear arms. We were meant to be held in respect by those who govern us because of these rights.
Sean Hannity believes, along with many other conservatives, that real fascism is on the far left. He said, “political correctness is an echo of Nazi suppression of freedom of speech.” Liberals blanch at this accusation. Their polarization is based on a hatred of big business. They seem to lack a basic understanding of economics and also must ignore the historical weakness of socialism. Without incentives, the market forces do not work to sustain a healthy economy. People who supply jobs are made to appear as the enemy. Mussolini described fascism as a wedding between the power of the state and the power of the corporation.
Are there corporations and power elites who have their own interests at heart to the detriment of our nation? Without a doubt, yes. Are all corporations part of the problem, especially smaller businesses who are led by patriotic Americans who care about their country and are trying to keep their jobs in the country? Without a doubt, no. Capitalism is not inherently evil but extremism is and leads to a desire for control. Egomaniacs are convinced that others are inferior to them and they must be given the reigns to guide the dumb masses.
For the far left, their motivation is “arrogant idealism.” Their attitude is that we know best, and the masses are incapable of governing themselves so we, the intelligentsia will guide the political leaders. There is infighting between them and the far right represented by big business whose motivation is greed and control.
The method that they use is to distract people on both sides of the spectrum with long agendas designed to appeal to the emotions that can easily create a mob mentality clouding logic and judgment. This leads the masses further and further to one side or the other, creating dangerous polarization.
By pitting the political parties against each other, the power elite blinds the people to the fact that the end results of both extremes is the same; CONTROL.
The political spectrum is a circle, not a line and where the ends meet, the leaders of both sides shake hands. They have been very good at making sure that no one in line behind them knows that the two on the end are shaking hands.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain are good friends and are one of many examples of leaders on opposite sides who are actually after the same goal of power. This is why the media has been trying to hard to make sure McCain is the GOP nominee. CNN reported the following about Hillary and John:
“She and John McCain are very close,” Clinton said. “They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they’re afraid they’d put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.”
You poor huddled masses, victims of fascism, come into our arms and we will give you rest…in socialism, which is the opposite of fascism. No, it is one step away from fascism at the end of a handshake. Traditionally, the idea of fascism being nationalistic, is at odds with those who believe that a natural progression for society is to move toward world government. Academia teaches that civilization has progressed from hunter/gatherers to villages, to city states then nations. Most believe that the progression toward world unification is inevitable and most are sincere in their beliefs that this is best for mankind for a multitude of reasons; population concerns, environmental dangers, care of the poor, etc. Fascism now has a new face; world control but without the pretense of the power being in the hands of the masses. It is all window dressing. If the far right wins, the power elite is in control. If the far left wins, they will put on the label of the masses controlling resources, but in actuality, the power elite will still be in control because at the top of both movements, the same people are involved.
What We Can Do?
The power elite that has created the problem has given us the solution. Everyone must move to the middle. This must be done to save the country from dangerous division.
So, we should be moderates, right? No, because liberals have co-opted the label. People who would have been a moderate on the political spectrum 50 years ago are now somewhere in the middle of the right. They did not move, the spectrum and label did. This does not mean we have to agree exactly on every issue but avoiding extremism is crucial. As we have stated many times, the answer to dangerous division is not to give up our values. The answer is to communicate differences with respect and kindness.
Chavez and many other Latin American countries have been driven into the arms of socialism because they believe this to be the polar opposite of fascism. They have been persuaded that the United States has become a fascist state so that they have easily been manipulated into the opposite direction. Remembering the circle, the opposite direction actually brings them back to the very point they were politically fleeing from.
After WWII, the Nazis went to capitalist countries to help combat Stalinism. Cold war was fought, the curtain fell and now there is infighting between the two sides of what is essentially one group; the arrogant power elite who believe they must guide the ignorant masses. Therefore, the battle of the common man, is to fight extremism on either side of the spectrum; the intelligentsia on the left, and the international bankers and business on the right, remembering that at the very top levels they are the same people. George Orwell, a socialist, warned his fellow intelligentsia that it is a small step from socialism to fascist tyranny in his famous book Nineteen Eighty-Four.
What it all boils down to:
That government which best protects freedom of religion, regardless of labels/ideologies is the government that is best and is performing the proper role of a government. Freedom of religion must encompass freedom of speech or freedom of religion cannot really exist. Freedom of speech is a corollary to Freedom of religion as freedom of the press is a corollary to freedom of speech. We have to guard these freedoms carefully. On the left side of the spectrum the tendency is to suppress religion, while on the right the tendency is to have a state sponsored religion. We have to fight both of these things. Laws that limit one group’s freedom of religion impact all religions and all of our basic freedoms. What made America great was its willingness to allow all religions the right to believe what they want. If we safeguard this everything else will fall in line and we will preserve the keys that have made this nation the greatest on earth.
Below we have given the definitions of some of the key words to understanding the spectrum.
These definitions were taken from Wikipedia:
Anarchy (from Greek: anarchía, “without ruler”) may refer to any of the following:
- “Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.”
- “A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).”
- “Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx. Opponents say that communism is an ideology, whereas promoters say that it is the only political system without ideology, because it is the consequence of historical materialism and the revolution of the proletariat.
|“||The Communists… are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois State, conquest of political power by the proletariat. – Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 1848||
Although many forms of communism, such as Leninism, Trotskyism and Luxemburgism, are based on Marxism and Karl Marx is sometimes known as the “father of Communism“, non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist.
Fascism is an authoritarian ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. The key attribute of fascism is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
The intelligentsia is a of people engaged in complex mental and creative labor directed to the development and dissemination of culture: intellectuals and social groups close to them (e.g. artists, school teachers).
Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.
The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term socialism was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.
Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange. Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers’ councils.
In modern usage a tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization. The term carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. However, in the classical sense, the word simply means one who has taken power by their own mean as opposed to hereditary power (and generally without the modern connotations). This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy.
Addendum Concerning the 2008 Presidential Election
Due to a wonderful question by one of our readers, I want to briefly outline where McCain fits into the picture. Doing this will hopefully clarify how those who desire power are manipulating events.
“This is great information but I am still a little confused. Does McCain represents the far right, the far left or the moderates?”
For years there has been a tug-of-war among the international power brokers and the academic backers of a One World Government, the first side representing the far right and the second side representing the far left (with exceptions). The idealistic academics are as a general rule, more concerned about compassion in the methods used to garner power. The right wing power brokers have shown a more traditional desire to hold to at least some values but are also more ruthless in believing that the end justifies the means. The infighting has slowed progress in reaching their goals. To find a way past this impasse, McCain is being used, in my opinion, to force the right to give way.
The average Republican does not want John McCain as a representative of our party so why is the Republican Establishment backing him? They have seen that in order to further their shared goals of gaining control, the impasse must end. McCain is their barely acceptable representative to shake hands with the left, knowing he is palatable to them. So, the answer to the question about where McCain is on the political spectrum, he is on the left in most values with lip-service given to a few conservative values. His label is moderate with the window-dressing necessary to be the answer to a divided nation. He is the tool of capitulation of the far right in order to ensure their power base which they share with those on the far left.
Continue to Part 3 of this series, Dialogue of Freedom