“In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom – fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.” Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard
In the linear political spectrum the Right signifies less government, the Left more government. The scale runs from zero (0) to one hundred (100). The end and middle points are set by the easily quantified Ideological terms anarchism [zero 0], Totalitarianism [One Hundred 100] and Center or Moderate [Fifty 50].
As can be seen, some ideological definitions are easily quantified and positioned. Others have to be quantified within a reasonable range and placed on the scale. A third type are decidedly vague in principle or internally contradictory and thus it is difficult to numerically determine these ideological terms. It also should be noted that over time certain groups tend to gravitate to these ideologically vague terms. Most of the spectrum can be constructed with the first two types, while the third positioned within the ranges previously determined.
There are many cases where the ranges of the ideological terms overlap on the scale, thus logically follows from the fact that many are very similar to each other. It will also be seen that many of these ideological terms will be stacked up in certain areas.
Certain ideological groups perennially attempt to recast themselves with new or varying self-labeling terminology. These “New and Improved” political groups usually seek to leave failure behind with an altered name whilst advocating the same base ideology. Thus they tend to always be clustered in one area of the political spectrum. This is exemplified by the myriad of synonyms for the various collectivist ideologies. In these cases, these different ideological terms do not vary in the metric of the scale.
Libertarianism signifies minimal governance and therefor is placed at the Right end of the scale with a numerical value in the range of [Ten (10) to Twenty (20)]. Conservatism is rightfully placed in line next with a generalised numeric range of [Twenty (20) to Thirty (30)].
The ideological range of the Socialist – Left was previously determined to be about fifty (50) to one hundred (100). This can be further narrowed down by the examination of the definition of the term Socialism.
“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”
“(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.”
“a system of society or group living in which there is no private property”
“a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”
Given that these definitions specify immense levels of government control and portend the transition to the authoritarian realms of Communism, this ideological range of this term can be narrowed down even further towards the higher end of the scale from seventy (70) to one hundred (100)
“The enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.”
“concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people”
Clearly these definitions set a numerical range close to that of totalitarianism  on the scale within a generalised range of 100 – 90
By the same token Communism can also be similarly placed at the top end of the scale in a generalised range of 100 – 90
“In this form of communism it was held that the state would wither away after the overthrow of the capitalist system. In practice, however, the state grew to control all aspects of communist society.”
“a theory advocating elimination of private property”
“a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
This generalised range of 100 – 90 would also apply to the term statism.
“A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs”
You can support PragerU by clicking https://www.classy.org/checkout/donation
*AKA “Universal Background Checks” or “Comprehensive Background Checks”
Given recent terrorist attacks, those who wish to destroy liberty are once again using these serious crises as a pretext to impose even more control over our lives. They would like us to trade some more of our freedom for the promise of ‘a little temporary Safety’ as Benjamin Franklin termed it.
This false promise is predicated on the belief that criminals and terrorists will somehow have a change of heart and abide the law in obtaining their tools of terror. Those who cannot deal with the fact that our rights are inalienable would like us to believe that they have a magical solution to keep the scum of the earth from obtaining weapons. That once and for all, criminals and terrorists will become good citizens of the world just because new laws have been implemented that control the possessions of the innocent.
Of course, those of us living in reality know that these new denigration’s of our common sense civil rights will do nothing in this regard. These new constrictions on liberty will only serve to incrementally take away those rights and empower those unencumbered with the law.
The issue is whether the government should have total control over your property. In this we have a profound difference between Right and Left, between those who support individual rights and those who have a collective mentality. There is the insidious presumption by the progressive Left to inexorably impose tighter and tighter controls over our lives simply for the greater good.
So why should the government have control over certain kinds of property for emotionally arbitrary reasons? The nation’s Socialist left simply asserts this should be the case because they’ve decreed certain inanimate objects to be dangerous.
Their insidious presumption is of collective ownership, that certain (if not all) property should be under the purview of the government. Consider that gun confiscation is usually couched as a mandatory “Buy back”. To those imbued with the precepts of individual liberty and freedom this phraseology makes no sense.
How can the government “Buy back” something it never owned?
It’s also doesn’t help that the Left loves to play fast and loose with the language. When polled on the issue, it’s phrased with regard to the innocuous sounding term ‘Background checks’ in connection to gun buyers. Sometimes the words ‘universal’ or ‘comprehensive’ are tossed into the mix, or they will talk of ‘expanded’ background checks, or of the ‘closing loopholes’.
But what would be the results of a poll that asked if the government should have total control over everyone’s property? That is the underlying issue here that is deliberately being concealed.
Often times these expansions of government power will have accompanying penalties for the failure to report a lost firearm. Why should this be a problem if the stated concern is about criminals buying guns?
This would only be a priority if they wanted total property control. If the Gun grabbers [Gun reformers as they like to mischaracterize themselves] primary concerns were as stated, then their control fetish should not exist.
It’s always a fun exercise to ask Leftists questions that they cannot honestly answer.
One of these is where the government obtains the authority to control everyone’s property with Intergalactic Background Checks.
This will flummox them because they won’t be able to cite the Constitutional justification and it sets out in stark relief their collectivist viewpoint. Their mindset is that government control of property is entirely justified without question. But they can’t exactly articulate this rationale without giving up the game on their world view, so they avoid the issue and gloss it over with emotionally laden talking points.
There is no Constitutional justification for Intergalactic Background Checks but that has never stopped those who want to assert complete control over the individual. In the case of a Federal Firearms License the argument is that the long abused ‘Commerce clause’ provides the answer, just as it has for just about every other government overreach.
Can one argue with a straight face that the founding fathers would have wanted the government to have this level of control over the people’s property? How is loaning a 12 gauge to a friend “Commerce.. among the several States”?
The larger philosophical point here is that that liberty depends on property rights, that if they control a person’s property, they control them. Their liberty is forfeit if someone has overarching control such that they can take that property at any time or decree what someone can do with said property. Ownership means that you don’t need someone else’s permission to buy, sell or even possess something.
Control is synonymous with ownership, governmental control means government ownership. It means you are merely the temporary possessor of property under government control. And this doesn’t even begin to touch the issue of taxation or the fact that these controls will lead to the Left’s ultimate goal of confiscation.
Where the left to attain their nirvana of controlling your property, they would move on to control other types of property for the greater good as well as making it more odious to defend yourself. They would not be able to resist their primal urge to tax your possessions and heap on all manner of red tape to make it as difficult and embarrassing to exercise your Constitutional rights.
History teaches us that these measures are never the last word, that there are always additional moves the Left will make based on their latest overreach. If you give the government new unprecedented powers over one aspect of your life, it won’t be long before they will want to take full advantage of the situation and expand that power everywhere else.
In every society throughout human history the following relationship has held true: as government grows, human freedom and happiness shrinks. Best selling author, Dennis Prager puts it this way: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” This has been true in Europe for decades and is becoming ever more so in the United States. But it’s not the kind of nation, the Founding Fathers had in mind. Can we get back to the principles of liberty and individual responsibility? It’s a big challenge. But first we have to recognize the problem.
You can support PragerU by clicking https://www.classy.org/checkout/donation?
A somewhat impertinent question to the GOP: Were you lying the whole time about repealing Obamacare?
History has taught us that sometimes it’s inflection points are difficult to discern at the moment. Often it takes events around these points to provide context. Examining the past is through the objective lens of hindsight makes it easy to determine these points, but not so for those in the midst of them.
However, one can use past events and the immutable laws of human nature to look ahead and see if present events meet the standard of an historic turning point. In the case of present events one can make an educated guess as to the consequences of the two choices before you.
At present the GOP has a choice to make with regard to the fiscal abomination of Obamacare. It can either chose the path laid out for it by the Socialists on the nation’s Left and set a course towards historic oblivion. Or it can return to it’s principled roots of preserving liberty.
And not to delve too far into a rhetorical tangent, but you can dispense with binary choice canard and the lie that this will repeal Obamacare. Do you really think that crying wolf once again will have us settle for that which we roundly despise simply because you assert that we have no other choice? Please don’t insult our intelligence on this point. While we don’t dwell in the vaunted halls of power and breath in the rarefied air of Washington with it’s endemic wisdom, we know that you hold all the cards. We know that you vanquished the Democrats several times over (partially over this issue) because we were there helping you every step of the way.
Were you to continue the pretense of “repealing” Obamacare while setting it’s Socialist precepts in stone the odds are very likely that it will fail, and to put a colloquial spin on it “Fail Bigly”. But in this instance it will have your fingerprints all over it. In the meantime it’s high taxes, high deductibles and draconian control of everyone’s health care will be on your esteemed shoulders.
Continue on the course of action and you will be shown to be abject liars with regard to repealing Obamacare. Please refer to the above paragraph with regard to the continual parroting of the “Repeal” falsehood. Most people trust politicians to a certain extent, you folks of the GOP establishment are far beyond that point.
While you may think that continuing Obamacare will somehow yield you more power, in the long run the opposite will be the case. Your futile ‘reboot’ of Obamacare will only serve to destroy the party and you along with it. Allowing the vile and immoral precepts of Socialism to metastasize even further will make it that much harder to defeat in the end and history will blame you for this.
Your only other choice is to scrap Obamacare 2.0 and start over, this time basing it on free-market principles and liberty. You should reject the Socialist’s contention that the government should control healthcare and the people along with it. Of course, this will be politically tough for you to endure, but you have to know that this will be the case no matter what you do.
But if you take the politically expedient course of action that pushes the party left away from the principles of liberty it will only be a short term advantage and in the end only serve to destroy the party.
It takes a specialised lack of intelligence to throw away the immense power attained from several stunning political victories while throwing a much needed life line to the failed ideology of Socialism.
It is axiomatic that when one’s enemy is in the midst of destroying themselves, one gets out of the way. But strangely, enough this isn’t entirely the case with recent events. This morning there were the perfunctory number of news items from the National Socialist Media issuing the usual histrionics over the AHCA:
It is always expected that the “Objective” Journalists of the National Socialist Media will take every opportunity to push their usual propaganda about their political enemies. This would have been the reaction no matter the actions of the GOP or the Trump administration. Parenthetically, they could have re-branded the disaster know as Obamacare and they still would have… Wait a minute.. that’s what the GOP did anyway.. never mind..
One can easily surmise that after the Left had discerned the particulars of Obamacare 2.0 they would rubbed their collective hands together with glee and broken out the champagne usually reserved for news report of mass shootings. And it could easily be assumed that the nation’s Socialist Left is merely engaging in a bit of reverse psychology at the moment. Loudly complain about something they are secretly jumping for joy as a way of ‘supporting’ the Republican’s In Name Only cabal with what is normally expected of them.
So while it is difficult to guess the rationale for the Left’s actions as of late, it still should be extremely useful to examine the repercussions of failing to rewrite the bill and pushing through Obamacare 2.0 by the former GOP.
1. “Read my lips: No new taxes” soon to be “Read my lips: No Obamacare repeal”
Remember the firestorm that resulted from George H.W. Bush having to raise taxes after he made the pledge: “Read my lips: No new taxes”? Multiple that by several orders of magnitude for every candidate who pledge to repeal Obamacare over the past few years.
This will be a primary issue for every one of those candidates and an issue raised by the Democrats with regard to trustworthiness.
2. When Obamacare collapses it will the fault of the GOP.
The GOP has set itself in a perfect storm of incompetence. They will be to blame when Obamacare implodes since they are proudly placing their imprimatur on the plan. And if by some miracle it stays solvent the Left would take credit for the system. Either way the GOP loses, perfect planning.. to help the other side…
3. Moving Left is a bad move while the rest of the world is moving Right.
These days the Socialist – Left is in dire straits, aside from the Obama cult victories they’ve been on a losing for years. Their life-support dominating the media, culture and government indoctrination centers is the only thing keeping them away from total collapse. And yet the GOP is throwing them a lifeline with this legislative muck up.
4. Obamacare 2.0 will be the end of the GOP.
Many stated this was the case with the ascension of Trump, and his winning the White House forestalled this thinking for a time. But if the GOP fails to go back to the drawing board with AHCA abomination there will be no saving the GOP. Thus we circle back to the original question: Why would the national Socialist Left want to interrupt the GOP destroying itself?
Maybe we should see this as a means to a new party that will be reborn out of the ashes of the GOP and that is why the Left is against this legislation. Perhaps a new party without the GOP baggage would serve to finally send the left’s base ideology to the dustbin of history.