Dialogues with Socialists: Red Fiction, part 1

By Zach Foster

An analysis of Dialogues with Socialists: Racism and Civil Rights

What a lively discussion that was!  I quickly realized that what we had was an old fashioned Socratic dialogue, which caused my initial excitement for posting it on the Political Spectrum.  I would like to note that after several days of silence, Soviet Socialist came back to the dialogue and stated displeasure that the dialogue made it to the Political Spectrum without the consent of those involved.  I was unaware that I was bound by such an agreement, and I believed that protecting the privacy of their identities was sufficient, since complete strangers would be reading this and not those who knew them.  I’m not quite sure if the opposition’s displeasure is due to the fact that I used our conversation without their consent, or because I used their own words to illustrate a realistic dystopia of the Marxian system in which they so fervently believe.  Nonetheless, it is clear that I offended them and for that I offer them my apology.  At the time of my writing this analysis of our debate, Soviet is currently working on a rebuttal.  While I wait for that, I will proceed with the analysis of our Socratic dialogue.

Originally, Soviet posted a video link whose title stated that Ron Paul wouldn’t have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  This is an obvious attempt to paint Ron Paul as a bigot—something he is definitely not—as well as a subtle attempt to poke at me by assassinating the character of someone I highly respect (Soviet is a good friend of mine and knows my favorable views of Ron Paul).   What Soviet didn’t realize was how irrelevant the video and the interview are; Ron Paul wasn’t even in Congress in 1964—he was serving our country in the Air Force—and asking him how he would have voted is akin to asking him “If you could go back in time, what would you…”  Who cares?

Three socialists were involved in this debate.  The primary debater was Soviet Socialist, the secondary debater was Socialist Worker who left shortly, and the third was Violent Pacifist who merely made one comment, calling Congressman Paul a mother f***er.

After Moderate, the other non-socialist besides me, initially denied Soviet’s “case closed” statement, Soviet insinuated that nothing would stop companies from racial discrimination in their hiring processes once the act was hypothetically repealed.  This is a slippery slope argument.  Insinuating that the repeal of the act would open the flood gates to racial discrimination—a flawed argument at best—is the equivalent of the popular but flawed argument that legalization of gay marriage will open the floodgates to interspecies marriages.  Animals, unlike adult humans, cannot consent, and racial discrimination of the potential cream of the labor crop is bad for business and worse for profits.

After having dismissed Congressman Paul as a racist, Soviet continued to dismiss him as having no understanding of political economy.  This accusation can hardly be taken seriously when thrown at a celebrated Austrian school economist of the modern era.  At this point the argument was no longer whether he would or would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which is irrelevant given that he wasn’t in Congress at the time), but that he is a racist with no understanding of political economy.

I still stand by my statement that racism is a thing of the past, and anyone willfully out of step with tolerance is simply out of step with the rest of society.  Bigotry and backwardness will always exist no matter what.  What is important is that the vast majority of humans learn tolerance and coexistence.  I also still stand with my viewpoint that the 1964 Act, though it did infringe on states’ rights, was necessary because the Southern states were using the Jim Crow system to step on the rights of their non-white citizens.

Socialist Worker then jumped in to defend Soviet’s points, and playfully commented on my high horse verbiage.  I still fully stand with my observation that Soviet was on a high horse, since Soviet’s character assassination of Congressman Paul was moralistic and the dismissing of him as having no understanding of political economy was elitist.  Both points were and are founded on quicksand and absolutely wrong.  Furthermore, neither Soviet Socialist nor Socialist Worker have ever read a Ron Paul book (despite my repeated recommendations), and generally don’t know what they’re talking about when they try to lower his moral standing as a leader.

I still fully agree with Moderate that calling Congressman Paul a silly rich white man was even more of a racist action that the alleged racism being cried out against.  Thankfully, Soviet did not condone that little comment.  However, what that attack is characteristic of is the Marxism prevalent in today’s academia which strives to paint a universal guilt trip on the white man.  I will fully admit that white European males have committed many crimes against other peoples, though they are not the only subcategory to have done so.  Need I remind anyone that social class division and serfdom were more rigidly enforced in feudal Asia than in Europe, and that African slaves were sold by their own people to white slavers?  This is all beside the point really, which is that Ron Paul is not a racist.  Marxists simply love to hate the legacy of Western civilization.  I wonder if Soviet Socialist or Socialist Worker are aware of that fact that Karl Marx was a rich white man.  The bouts of poverty he and his family periodically suffered were the result of his insistence to live off of inheritances and loans, coupled with his refusal to GET A JOB.  Who’s the silly one now?

Soviet’s statement that the Tea Party Patriots are the epitome of racism is incredibly false.  The reason I hold little respect for the Tea Party movement is that it is based in ultraconservatism and many if not most of its members subscribe to the ideas of the ultra-religious and ultranationalist Ameritianity cult.  I also have no respect for Fox News because it is a propaganda network and everyone who isn’t a fan of Fox News is aware of that.  I’ve written before that Fox News is as fair and balanced as a seesaw with an obese child on one side.  Using those to argue against me is like fighting a fire with gasoline.  Yet Soviet tries to incorporate the Marxist dialectic into this debate by equating the “ruling class” with a cult and a propaganda television network.  This “ruling class” sounds a lot more like the Soviet Union with its Lenin worship and monopoly of state-owned media.

Impressively, Soviet did subtly concede that in regards to racists, “Paul might not be one…”  This concedes the original argument in favor of Moderate and I.  The opposition accused Ron Paul of being a racist, we denied and refuted, and now it is admitted that he “might not be one.”  This is probably the best I’m going to get, so I’m happy with it.  Unfortunately, Soviet equated Ron Paul with right-wingers, which is not the case.  Right wingers tend to impose their conservative ideals on the rest of the population (just like Marxists), whereas Congressman Paul is more of a Libertarian than a Republican, who constantly promotes individual liberty and pursuit of happiness (independent of State intervention), whether it be through drug use, religion, homosexuality, or whatever makes the individual happy.  This is true liberation.  Socialism and Communism would seek to impose radical changes and utopian ideals on everyone, in the name of freedom, but in the form of oppression.

Soviet also assumes that most right wingers in the “ruling class” are CEOs, and these CEOs are also racists who will racially discriminate in the hiring process.  Really?  This is the twenty-first century.  “Most right-wing leaders are CEOs” is a false generalization at best.  These evil CEOs will either be greedy for profits, or they will be racist.  If a black worker is more efficient and productive on the assembly line, then he will be hired or promoted first.  If a Hispanic accountant manages to bring the company greater tax returns, then he will be hired first.  Soviet forgets that these allegedly racist CEOs are subservient to the corporation’s Board of Directors, whose members probably aren’t racist.  I wonder if Soviet has heard of Herman Cain, the very successful right-wing CEO who is a black man, born to a poor black family in the deep south, who now heads a pizza and Italian cuisine chain and is a bestselling author.

Soviet follows up with ad hominem attacks directed at me.  “And don’t talk to me about "being on a high horse" and accusing random people for racism that isn't there, you damn hypocrite.”  Fair enough.  “…don’t talk to me about being on a high horse…”  If Soviet doesn’t want me to talk about being on a high horse, then who can take my place?  Is there any candidate that Soviet will accept?  Alright, alright, I’m just being facetious on that one.  Call me a comedian.  However: “…accusing random people for racism that isn't there…”  We’ve already established that Ron Paul, the main topic of this debate and the main target of Soviet’s character assassination, is not a racist.  Follow this up with the blanket accusation that CEOs are racist and hypothetically will use the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to discriminate openly.  Taking these facts and adding two and two, Soviet was in fact accusing random people of racism that is in fact not there.

I wrote: “FACT: Most Americans are NOT RACIST. A small minority are. There are other and better shadow puppets to keep prisoners chained to the walls of Plato's cave than racism. Please don't call me a damn hypocrite, since I'm neither damned nor a hypocrite.”

I agree with Moderate that people in high paying positions are paid because of knowledge, education, and experience.  Most people can pretty well understand that this is a generalization and not an absolute statement.  I know that cronyism and inheritances exist, but they account for a minority of positions held in the high paying world.  I slightly disagree with him that being racist means being caught doing a racist act.  Really, being racist means a person believes that one race is supreme to all the others, or that one particular race is below all the others.  We know that Congressman Paul is not a racist, since his writings clearly stress his belief that God created all people as equals.  I encourage everyone to research Karl Marx’s writings on the racial trash in Europe.

Part 1 of the dialogue concludes with my defense of Ron Paul’s ideas.  I defend the fact that Congressman Paul is “one of the pacifists who would rather see change happen slowly and peacefully—all inclusive—than for it to happen quickly and violently in a sea of bitterness. I'm sorry that such pacifism is inconsistent with revolutionary ideology, but most thinking people don't think the way socialists do.”  This is true.  The proletarian revolution Marx and Engels write of is not all-inclusive.  The proletarian revolution calls for the destruction and dissolution of an economic fiction called the bourgeoisie.  What I have yet to hear from any Marxist is the direct admission that destroying and dissolving a group, like the bourgeoisie, realistically means destroying (killing or converting) human beings.

Though Marxists see themselves as elevating all people through revolution, they ignore the fact that many people simply don’t want to be elevated.  People will be counter-revolutionary, peasants and workers included, because they either simply disagree with Marxism and don’t wish to live it in their own lives, though they respect the rights of others to live by it, or they believe it is wrong.  In either case, they will fight this tyranny of the revolution, and if the revolution is to succeed, these counter-revolutionaries must be destroyed.

Continued in part 2

Dialogues with Socialists: Racism and Civil Rights

I recently took part in a highly engaging internet discussion of various ideas of racism, civil rights, socialism, and libertarianism with some friends of mine.  As all will be able to read below, the discussion turned to a debate which the author walked away from with the upper hand.  This debate is being posted here not for bragging rights, but as a piece meant to educate political and social thinkers on some of the hidden fundamentals of socialism and exactly where the collectivist mindset clashes with the libertarian or individualist mindset.

As a courtesy, all names other than the author’s have been replaced with aliases in order to protect the privacy of those involved.  There have been slight edits made only for the same of correcting spelling and punctuation errors.  All wording has been kept intact in order to protect the integrity of the debaters and their message, as well as to protect the integrity of the truth.  This dialogue actually occurred and I saved the original transcript, should those involved contest the accuracy of this presentation.

Soviet Socialist: [Link: YouTube video – Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Voted For the 1964 Civil Rights Act] Proof…. Case closed.

Moderate: He didn't admit to it. Case reopened.

Violent Pacifist: Mother fu..... [angry emoticon]

Soviet Socialist: He wants to get rid of these laws because they're "ancient history". If he is elected and goes through with it, what’s to keep some companies from taking advantage of that saying "there are no laws saying I can't" and then applying it to their hiring processes? This guy has no understanding of political economy...

Zach Foster: Yes he does; his ideas simply differ from yours and you're already on a high horse about it. Racism really is a thing of the past, and those who still uphold racist views are relics out of step with society. I'm with Moderate; Ron Paul never admitted to it. And finally, the civil rights act of 1964 was necessary at the time, but still did heavily infringe on state sovereignty. I say this was a necessary evil that the Feds had to step on the states because the southern states were stepping on their non-whites.

Socialist Worker: Soviet, I did not know you had a horse...

Anyhow, racism is not a thing of the past. It's still pretty alive and kicking, just that its more subtle and dressed up spiffy. And if challenging and calling out racist pricks for what it is means that Soviet gets a horse, then I want one too [smily emoticon].

Honestly, all I got from this interview was "Hey it's my 'individual liberty' to be a bigot-racist A-hole and government SHOULDN'T infringe on me if I want to be a prick and not hire or refuse services to people of color."

Silly rich white man.

Soviet Socialist: [to Zach] Um...WRONG. As I've stated before about Capitalism, and especially the US, Racism is one of the many means used by the ruling class to pit workers against each other and to make competition between them so they can use cheap labor. Your attitude of "racism is a thing of the past" fails miserably because as I recall the Tea Party, the epitome of racism, gets LARGE amounts of funding from corporations and massive media coverage (and support) from Fox. Paul may not be one, but racism tends to be a given with right wingers. Most of these right wingers are CEOs and WILL use a repeal of this law as an advantage. And don’t talk to me about "being on a high horse" and accusing random people for racism that isn't there, you damn hypocrite.

Moderate: People in high paying positions, corporate or government or wherever, these days are paid because of their knowledge, education, and experience. It does not matter what color you are today....if you can back up your job title...you can get the job. Using the race card is so....yesterday. Any idea how many Hispanic babies Ron Paul delivered in his hometown? To be a racist you must be caught in the act of doing a racist act...like burning crosses, waving Nazi flags, graffiti on walls. You can't just point a finger and say he's a racist......especially when he's just guilty of being white. Now making a statement like Socialist Worker did, "silly rich white man"...is more racist than how a man "might have voted".

Zach Foster: FACT: Most Americans are NOT RACIST. A small minority are. There are other and better shadow puppets to keep prisoners chained to the walls of Plato's cave than racism. Please don't call me a damn hypocrite, since I'm neither damned nor a hypocrite.

That's true, "silly rich white man" is pretty racist and altogether dismissive of a truly great man like Ron Paul. Anyone who's actually read a Ron Paul book wouldn't spout hate speech against him. HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. Ron Paul is not racist. He is simply one of the pacifists who would rather see change happen slowly and peacefully--all inclusive--than for it to happen quickly and violently in a sea of bitterness. I'm sorry that such pacifism is inconsistent with revolutionary ideology, but most thinking people don't think the way socialists do.

And really, the gov't CAN'T infringe on people's right to be bigots. They can't be forced to be good people, but only forced to obey laws. Furthermore Soviet, ask yourself what your revolution would do to these bigots once the proletariat comes to power?

Continued in Part 2: Jesus Christ and Karl Marx

Allegory of the Cave and American Politics, part 5

By Zach Foster

Continued from Part 4

The remaining Republican hopeful is Ron Paul.  Congressman Paul is one of the select few members of Congress who can boast an untarnished record.  In his private life he has served the community and the country, and his entire career as a public servant has been dedicated to restoring Constitutional law and fighting against government corruption and the stripping away of the rights of the citizenry.

He received his medical degree from Duke University in 1961 and served as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965.  He continued to serve the country with his medical skills in the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.  He opened a private practice after his military service and, rather than bow down to the authoritative whims of insurance companies, he ran a much more philanthropic private practice by giving reduced-cost services or pro-bono services to the poor.  In chapter four of his book The Revolution, Ron Paul explains how this system was much better for the poor and uninsured than the jokes today known as PMOs and HMOs.

Having been a former airman, he knows how the military works better than the non-veterans who love to shout about their patriotism while campaigning.  Machiavelli disdainfully describes the downfall of the latter in The Prince (chapter 9).  As a long time successful doctor, Ron Paul also has a firm grasp on how the health insurance and health care market, unlike the incumbent President and most
(if not all) Republican nomination hopefuls.

Having been a leading member of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute for twenty-nine years, Ron Paul can easily call himself one of the leading economists in America—a title and personality cult currently being held by professional inflationists like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.  For many decades, Congressman Paul has studied the economic theories of the leading thinkers in the Austrian School mof economics—Luwdig Von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Murray Rothbard, etc.—whose theories are based on monetary solidity, free trade, and the [proven] idea that individual freedom and economic prosperity go hand in hand.  To give a brief example of the accurate theories of the Austrian School, Ludwig Von Mises accurately predicted (to the detail) the fall of the Soviet Union in his book Socialism, written in 1919 (less than two years after the USSR was formed).  Ron Paul knows sound economics and, unlike most members of Congress, he offers concrete solutions to restoring the value of the dollar and restoring the economy in his books The Case For Gold (1982) and End the Fed (2009).

Under Ron Paul’s Presidency, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be drawn to a close, establishing peace with honor (without abandoning our allies) and this country would no longer be the “world police” (and certainly wouldn’t be involved in the Libyan Civil War, whose marginal-at-best U.S. involvement grows ever less popular).  The list of Ron Paul’s qualifications to be an excellent President goes on—the author doesn’t need to write them since they have already been written by other Ron Paul supporters who, rather than take a politician at his word, investigated his record and his writings and proposed solutions, and found overwhelming evidence testifying of his qualifications.

While Democrats blindly follow the shadows that cheer for Barack Obama and Republicans chain themselves down with Fox News propaganda, following Donald Trump’s shadow puppets on the cavern wall, there will be a minority of Americans who have awakened to the growing nightmare of their loss of more and more liberty, the Monopoly play money that is the U.S. dollar, a spiraling national debt, and the stretching thin of the American Empire.  They will not be fooled by shadows, for they have been freed and have grown accustomed to sunlight and fresh air; they know the truth and they seek to awaken their peers who still dwell in the cave.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is. And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

—Plato

END.

Allegory of the Cave and American Politics, part 4

By Zach Foster

Continued from Part 3

Let us examine the sights and sounds being experienced within the cave, both the prisoners chained to the cavern wall and by the escapee who has seen the light.  Americans are turning their focus to the 2012 Presidential elections which, as of April 2011, have four main candidates.  Barack Obama is running for reelection and has the support of the Democratic Party.  The three likely Republican candidates are Donald Trump, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul.

The author has already torn apart Trump’s charade as Republican Presidential material which, frankly, is an insult to the intelligence of every free-thinking American who is neither chained to the wall, looking at shadows, nor blissfully ignorant of being imprisoned in the web of media lies.  Arguments condemning Trump have been lightly touched upon here but in greater detail in the above-recommended article (“Why Barack Obama Will Be Reelected”).

The next most popular potential nominee is the author and businessman Herman Cain, whose biography and résumé truly command respect and admiration.  Cain’s life story speaks volumes in contradicting the dogmatic Marxist religion by proving that in the United States it is in fact possible for a poor boy to overcome both racial prejudice and poverty, and transcend class barriers to become wealthy through hard work and determination.  Some call it luck; others call it capitalism—the author prefers to call it the American Dream.  Cain has worked as a mathematician for the Department of the Navy, chaired large companies, and advised the President of the United States on economic matters.  Many Conservatives are in love with Cain both for his Conservative platform and personal accomplishments.  The author is also impressed with Cain, but slightly distraught that he has never once held a seat in public office. Seldom have junior politicians been successful without at least some experience in lower-level public office, and going straight from CEO to President of the United States may be a bit too much for a novice to handle.  Cain’s résumé does not qualify him for the Presidency.  However, given his vast experience in the private sector, he would make an outstanding Secretary of Commerce or Secretary of Labor.  It would be a great shame if the next President did not have Cain in the Cabinet.

The selection of Cain also could also lead one to make additional conclusions.  Though Cain has an impressive history and a solid Conservative platform of ideas, he is not the only Republican hopeful that boasts such attributes—not by a long shot.  One might remember that a large contributing factor to Obama’s 2008 election was his race.  Americans still felt the stigma of racism and its painful legacy and saw in Obama a perceived way to overcome it.  Such suspicions would be confirmed by the extensive media coverage (more of a jubilee) making a big deal that for the first time America had a black President.  While it was certainly impressive to many within America and around the world that the ball and chain of racial prejudice and discrimination, as well as interracial distrust, had largely disappeared, the author has believed for years that racism did not fade away during campus protests and sit-ins demonstrations, but rather in the mountains of Korea and the jungles of Vietnam as white, black, Asian, and Hispanic soldiers fought to save each other’s lives.

Still, Americans were glad that they had their ethnic minority President.  Now as 2012 approaches, it seems highly likely that the GOP is fumbling through the directory of honorable Republican politicians—each with virtually the same qualifications—and picking a token ethnic minority to run against the incumbent ethnic minority, who was the Democratic Party’s token minority whose job it was to wave a magic wand and erase the national guilt trip.  One might also believe that Cain is the last-minute replacement for former GOP National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who may have been intended to be the GOP’s secret weapon for 2012.

The tragedy of this trend of Messianic politics, which has expanded from the realm of working miracles to also include the realm of race and ethnicity, is that it does a huge discredit to the individuals on the ballot who are being used.  This trend of propping up a candidate simply for the convenience of their race is perhaps the most racist action of all, and selecting a candidate simply because of gender is the most sexist thing of all.  The candidates themselves, who have worked hard all of their lives and who are intelligent people with perhaps some very good ideas are being used like commodities, or even worse, must endure a personality cult being placed on their shoulders and pressuring them to work miracles.  Honestly, how realistic was the rush of the Hope and Change high of 2008?  What made Obama different from Ken Salazar, John Lewis, or Sanford Bishop?  Today, what makes Cain different from Allen West, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal?

Concluded in Part 5: Enter Ron Paul

Allegory of the Cave and American Politics, part 3

By Zach Foster
Continued from Part 2

If simple mayors can simultaneously strip their indifferent constituents of freedom and make themselves rich, what is stopping members of Congress—who have multibillion dollar special interest groups throwing money and favors at them—from going down the same crooked route?  In the last decade alone, over a dozen members of the U.S. Congress were caught in some sort of scandal that cost them their position and whose actions harmed people.  This is only members of Congress, only those who got caught, not counting Legislative Branch employees, federal judges, Executive Branch officials, and administration officials.  While many American elected officials work hard to both make life better for their constituents and preserve freedoms against legislation and government action that would strip freedoms, there are those who are in politics only for themselves.  Several things motivate them, chiefly the money and perks coupled with the general indifference and willful ignorance of a population.  Where are the watchdogs?  Why are people not vigilant towards their elected officials?  Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and other national founders universally stressed that the preservation of liberty comes by dissent and a vigilant watchful eye.  Yet nowadays, not only do public officials go corrupt and unnoticed by a population hypnotized by Party propaganda or some social network, but corrupt people run and get elected!

The author fears that this trend will continue in the 2012 Presidential election.  The Democratic Party will be endorsing the incumbent President Obama, who has a strong likelihood of being reelected.  Of the forty-four U.S. Presidents, only twelve have served a single term—thirty two served more than one.  Furthermore, Obama has not completely alienated his supporters, and despite disillusionment over his continued waging of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his supporters still cling to him because of the passage of the Health Care Reform Act.  The Democratic Party is strong and united behind Barack Obama while the Republican Party is weak in its disunity.  See the article “Why Barack Obama Will Be Reelected” for further and in-depth reasons for his coming reelection.

There is no one candidate that Republicans are rallying behind.  The current popular front runner for the Republican nomination is Donald Trump.  Upon first learning of his popularity with Republicans, the author thought it was literally a joke.  Yet the frightening reality has set in that Republicans see him as the Messiah who will defeat the Muslim Stalin and restore Zion, bringing about the second coming of Ronald Reagan.  This could remind many of how so many Americans overwhelmingly placed quasi-Messianic hopes on Obama in 2008.  Try to recall the closing of the polls on November 4, 2008.  Recall Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson crying tears of joy, Chris Matthews rambling ecstatically, college students everywhere falling over weeping with happiness, Keith Olberman actually having something positive to say…  The underlying motivation for such belief and emotion was pure utopian idealism from the American Left and much of the Center.  They bought completely into his propaganda of hope and change.  On the Right, Obama has been viewed as nothing but a Marxist-Leninist Al Qaeda-sympathizing non-citizen who is out to destroy America and the free world.  They too have bought into partisan propaganda.

All over the political spectrum Americans are willfully chaining themselves to the cavern wall and choosing to believe that the shadows on the wall represent the real world.  One of their fellow prisoners escaped and saw the real world, and returned to open their eyes to the truth—yet they don’t recognize his voice and they see only the shadows on the cavern wall.  For some, the shadows are the hope and change, the low gas prices, the stable economy with a plethora of available jobs, and the immediate end of the Iraq War which were promised in 2008.  For others, the shadows are whatever hateful propaganda Fox News has spouted—any network that endorses the idea of Donald Trump running for President is deceitful, dishonest, and a remorseless propaganda machine.  To endorse a man who is an openly imperialist extortionist and one of the CEOs whose foolish too-big-to-fail policies brought about the financial recession to take the helm of the party of financial responsibility and the party that best represents the working class is the equivalent of chaining one’s self to the cave, chaining another person to the cave, and making that person join in watching the shadows.  Again, for elaboration on Trump's poor qualifications, see the above-recommended article.  Many Conservatives—especially ultraconservatives—love to laugh and point at the Leftists for their delusions while ignoring their own indoctrination as they lock-step march to the tune of the Party, hijacked by extremists, ultraconservatives, and ultranationalists.  This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black—of the prisoner laughing at his cave-bound brother for being in bondage.

Continued in Part 4: Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul

Allegory of the Cave and American Politics, part 2

By Zach Foster

Continued from Part 1

Let the reader take into consideration the idea of a large open field on the outskirts of the city or town.  This open field is fairly well known.  Rabbits and other small field animals make their homes there, while birds and occasionally owls make their homes in the dispersed trees.  Environmentalists like to stroll through there in the morning to enjoy nature.  Families periodically picnic there in the afternoons.  Amateur astronomers like to forget about their 9-to-5 jobs and take their telescopes there at night to enjoy the celestial wonders, away from the city’s street lights and the glows from kitchen windows.  Teenagers periodically go there to make out.  This open field is in an unincorporated area and is no one’s property, yet it is a very popular place.  The community seems to have established and agreed to an unwritten social contract that this un-owned piece of land belongs to everyone.

Meanwhile, the said mayor and city council took notice of their constituents’ lack of civil awareness and saw an opportunity for themselves.  They raised city taxes, passed a measure to raise their own salaries, passed another measure to raise the salaries of the top municipal police (in order to have the cops in their pockets), applied for some federal environmental grant resulting in passing another law requiring every homeowner to plant a tree in their front yard or pay a heavy fine (much to the chagrin of those with impeccable front lawns and gardens), zoned an area in favor of porn shops and liquor stores rather than restaurants and mom-and-pop shops.  They also, in a closed session, incorporated the popular field, flattened it, tore down the trees, and sold the land to a major globalized department store—a threat not only to the environment and the local wildlife, but also to the local economy, especially the small consumer goods businesses.  There is now a chain link fence surrounding the field, and any citizen trespassing will be fined or arrested.  All of a sudden municipal elections seem to matter!  Better yet, the mayoral candidate that lost the election was in favor of mom-and-pop shops, lower property taxes, and wanted to make the field into a nature park and a wildlife preserve.  Don’t municipal elections all of a sudden matter more?  After this series of crooked measures, the citizens literally have fewer freedoms and the community has been impacted for the worse.  This corrupt mayor and city council represent many politicians who perhaps started with good intentions but were corrupted by the power, prestige, and perquisites that come with the territory of public office.

Those who keep themselves chained to the allegorical cavern walls may still be on their messianic high from voting for Barack Obama in 2008, and not only do they feel good because they took part in “saving the world” by voting for him (or whatever rock star candidate in whatever election), but they also convince themselves that this kind of corruption doesn’t happen, or that it rarely ever happens at all.  Reality says otherwise.

New York City councilmember Larry Seabrook was hit with a sixty-six page federal indictment including fraud, scams, false reimbursements (like $177 for a $7 lunch), embezzlement of tens of thousands of dollars from philanthropic organizations, redirecting non-profit funds to his girlfriend’s private account (and he’s married), etc.  In California’s city of Bell, City Manager Robert Rizzo was raking in a salary of $800,000 plus schemes on the side, while other city councilmembers and workers were making $357-500 thousand a year, and part-timers bringing in $100,000—all from the public coffers.  Corruption charges were filed against councilmembers from Carlisle, NY and Baltimore, MD, city call workers from Dallas, TX and Baltimore, MD.  These are just a sampling of the hundreds of municipal corruption cases in the United States from last year alone.

If simple mayors can simultaneously strip their indifferent constituents of freedom and make themselves rich, what is stopping members of Congress—who have multibillion dollar special interest groups throwing money and favors at them—from going down the same crooked route?

Continued in Part 3: City Councils, U.S. Congress, and blissful ignorance in the 2012 elections

Allegory of the Cave and American Politics

By Zach Foster

Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

…they are prisoners…Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

--Plato, The Republic, Book Seven

Why is it that human beings often sink to the level of self-imposed mediocrity?  Everyone has heard the phrase “ignorance is bliss,” though most pretend that they are neither ignorant nor blissful.  Nonetheless, they go about their daily lives, maintained with the status quo and ignore both the successes and the problems surrounding them.  Though this image is a painting of all people, it especially applies to Americans in the following context: Why do so many Americans refuse to take an active part in the preservation of liberty?

American citizens—especially those who profess themselves to be educated, civic-minded, and aware of the political atmosphere—continually vote less and less often at the polls, whether it’s a municipal election they miss or even the last Presidential election.  The knowing and conscious failure of citizens to go to the polls and vote retranslates, in the minds of those actually in favor of upholding and preserving liberty, as “Hey!  Despots!  Please prey on me!  I didn’t vote, nor am I remotely aware of what actually goes on!  I’m just wearing this campaign button because my favorite celebrity endorsed this idiot!  I obviously don’t know you’re after my freedom, so go ahead and take it…  I won’t miss what I never used!”  Every once in a while some blow-hard will give lip service to the First Amendment to justify some ridiculously violent, vulgar, and utterly pointless design on his t-shirt, but seldom will the same blow-hard exercise his Constitutional right to elect a President and a Congress—or even a mayor.  People like this are the very prisoners Plato writes about, who see shadows on the cavern wall and think they know the world.  Better yet, these people aren’t even aware that they’re in chains!

“Municipal elections are unimportant!  Who cares about a mayor or some old farts on a city council?”  Similar words were echoed by some friends of the authors’ near the last municipal election in his hometown.  The author was feeling very much like the escaped prisoner who actually saw the world and came back to share his discovery with his mates in the cave so that they might also be free.  The author argued the following: the City of Los Angeles operates on an annual budget of $6.75 billion.  New York City operates on an annual budget of $40 billion.  Even small suburban cities operate on millions of dollars a year.  Much of this money comes from the citizens’ property taxes and other hidden taxes, fees, and living expenses.  Mayors and city councils are the individuals that make city laws and control how these millions are used (or misused).  They also control how their municipal Police will be able to operate, what the laws regarding individual property and housing will be, whether or not there will be a curfew at night time, whether to spend money building a library or a youth center, whether to zone an area for churches and mom-and-pop shops or for porn shops and cheap motels, if a local field is to be made into a nature preserve, a public park, or sold as private property to a corporate bidder, etc.  A small “elected” body of people (elected only by whatever majority from within the minority that actually showed up to vote) controls all these things.

Continued in Part 2: Guess how corrupt that city council became.  And you haven't even met the Congressman!