Same Old Tune, Second Verse
by Robert Davison (Wolf)
Socialism is defined as any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Progressives favor, among other things, proactive government, universal health care, a foreign policy dictated by the U.N., the living wage, guaranteed education from pre-kindergarten through college, and expanded Social Security benefits. Yet, progressives deny they are socialists.
Socialism is nothing new. It did not begin with Marx, or even Rousseau. Collectivists have a long and distinguished lineage stretching back to ancient times. A contented populace on the dole is as old as Rome itself. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that Rome fell when the burden of "bread and circuses" became too great.
Each generation rediscovers these ideological relics and embraces them to one extent or another with the energy and enthusiasm that only the young can muster. Like the heroes in Anne Rice’s novels, these ideas are odious and never truly dead.
Objectivism allows that errors of knowledge should be forgiven as innocent mistakes, but that errors of morality—because they are born of evasion, deception, and rationalization—should not. Clearly, progressives are not simply mistaken about not being socialists; the gulf between their claim and the empirical evidence can only be bridged by evasion and deception. Irrationality not only empowers their denial, but has the further consequence of impelling them headlong toward an abysmal error of ignorance. The appellation "progressive" means the opposite of what they intend.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Progressives of the early twentieth century did not favor the politically disenfranchised; they favored the powerful status quo. The Progressive movement was a knee-jerk reaction to the rising political power of newly arrived immigrants. Elections, for example, were moved from Saturday to Tuesday to reduce the working-class immigrant vote. Progressives further concentrated their hold on government by making it more professional. By the end of the 1920s, likely inspired by the Sixteenth and Seventeeth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, most cities had adopted some form of municipal civil service. Members of school boards and city councils were elected citywide rather than on a district-by-district basis. As these measures significantly increased the cost of campaigning, they made it exceedingly difficult for ethnic groups to elect their own representatives.
That progressives deny being socialists is a deliberate act of evasion. Predictably, and worst of all, their evasions corrupt their ethics. Their public pronouncements praising altruism are a stark contrast to the pragmatism they practice in their personal lives.
They lecture us about charity, while a relative in need is deemed a worthless bum, and told to get a job (or an education, or a life). The beleaguered relative is not provided for in the family budget, nor is he lent any money—the ‘loser’ might not pay it back. Yet with unctuous piety, progressives demand an allocation from the U.S. Treasury, knowing full well that the beneficiaries of this purloined largess are the very persons they deemed unworthy of help in the first place.
Progressives preach peace, and fight over parking spaces. They riot at sporting events and key their rival’s car. The weasels whine that life should not be competitive, demanding scoreless sporting events for their children at the same time they are evening old scores and clawing their way to the top of the corporate ladder.
They curse corporations as greedy and violent, while they harness the muscle of government-backed unions to demand more pay and better benefits for themselves and their kin—not because they are good at what they do, but because they were there first. The outsider, the so-called scab, is beaten, his family threatened and his home vandalized for the crime of being his own agent.
They preach brotherhood at their political rallies, and trample each other underfoot to be the first to their cars. In reverent tones they lecture us about values, while every penny of their personal income is leveraged to purchase fancier clothes, bigger homes and finer cars, not because they value them, but because possessing them impresses their neighbors. They advocate for the elderly but are certain they are better off in a nursing home. They insist their offspring marry well, but prefer the poor not marry at all. They urge abortions for their daughters while extolling the virtues of unwed motherhood to those who will whelp potential voters on the public dole.
Military spending is a waste of funds, but the money they spend on security systems for their cars and homes is a necessity. They dismiss those who risk their lives in the defense of freedom as cretins unfit for any other career, and argue against gun ownership while secreting a loaded revolver in their nightstand drawer.
Without compunction they traffic with dreadful people for a better job, good grades or admission to a country club, and view as unforgivable that the U.S. once supported Saddam.
Is there a stronger word than hypocrisy?
Perhaps the “national failures" that are the occasion of the constant carping by those sagging to the left are a manifestation of the guilt they feel over their individual shortcomings. Unfortunately, no amount of government largess can salve those wounds; the remedy for their malaise is a life that conforms to reality and is founded on reason.
©2005 by Robert Davison (Wolf). All Rights Reserved.
Discuss this Article (10 messages)
|
