Politically Divided

I am writing this post on election day.  The country has been divided politically for so long, it is hard for me to say when it began.  Certainly the country was divided under Clinton, but the country prospered under Clinton.  Millions of dollars were squandered on investigations that accomplished nothing but an impeachment meant entirely for show.  Perhaps that was the true beginning, but I think what galvanized the nation was the 2000 election.  I still hold a grudge against the Green Party for that election.  I find the actions of the Supreme Court indefensible.  Rather than find a fair, democratic, collaborative solution, they gave the election to President Bush.  The last twelve years have become more and more factional.

Many would likely argue with some of the things I have already said. I will try to quickly address those concerns before moving into what I most want to write about.  First, President Clinton's doing or not, the economy was pretty darn good under his administration.  Second, his approval ratings during his second term (after the impeachment) was congruent with F.D.R.'s, and Reagan's, so better than two thirds of Americans thought he did a pretty good job as president.  Third, Kenneth Starr was appointed to (re-)investigate the death of Vince Foster.  Starr found no wrong-doing of the Clinton Administration, or the Clintons, in the death.  The investigation continued into a real estate scandal called Whitewater, which uncovered nothing of significance.  In fact, after something approaching $80 million worth of investigating all that turned up was a sex scandal that Twitter and texting seem to be able to turn up for free today.  Lastly, it makes no matter who you supported, or who won the 2000 election, I have yet to hear someone make the argument that the election was well handled.  Maybe "gave" was too strong a word, but it was not the handling that befit this republic.

Whatever the cause, this, contrary to the Pledge of Allegiance, is a nation divided.  In this division, the nation has lost civility.  Lawmakers have rallied protester who were committing indefensible acts, satirists are taken for news, and name-calling abounds.

Some names and labels are helpful.  If we did not call the parties by a name, it would be difficult to know what was happening in politics.  Neither party, Democrats or Republicans, deserve to be called Nazis, yet it happens.  It can be a fun way to prove a point, but it does nothing to help the country, or to honor the Pledge of Allegiance.  It is quite unpatriotic to call any American lawmaker a Nazi.  The only people who should be called Nazis in 2012 are those who call themselves Nazis, and while they have the right to their beliefs, society should educate them about why it is abhorrent to have those beliefs.  Enough about Nazis though, because there are many other labels that might actually be helpful.

Other political and economic movements get thrown around as insults.  Calling someone a fascist, communist, or socialist is rarely done constructively.  I am liberal, according to an online quiz, I am actually very liberal.  One could thus attempt to call me a communist or a socialist, and ideologically, it would at least be the correct side of the spectrum.  Calling me a Fascist (or a Nazi), would be ridiculous.  As a liberal, I share very little with fascists when it comes to political ideology.  While fascism was created in Italy to provide a third option on the capitalism-communism spectrum.  Thus, it should avoid the left-right spectrum as well.  However, fascism seems to get pulled to the right whenever zealots get involved.  Hence, comparing communists and Nazis, communists and fascists, or liberals and fascists demonstrates a lack of understanding of those movements.  If you do not understand those logic problems, I recommend the Wikipedia page on Fascism.  Wikipedia also has pages on Communism and Socialism.  To wrap up this brief coverage of left and right, socialism (and communism at its heart) is an economic system, not a system of government.  Thus, fascists, communists, democrats, republicans, liberals, and conservatives all embrace some form of socialism, but I will come back to that in a bit.

I will start with communism.  It doesn't work.  Do I like the idea of communism?  Yeah, I think we all do.  Imagine a world without war, crime, class conflict, poor, sick, uneducated, etc.  It sounds pretty good, but it doesn't work.  There are no communist economies of scale left, and I do not think there ever was a real communist government (Stalin lived a far more comfortable life than the proletariat, meaning there were classes, which makes it not communism, but rather, Stalinism - if one defines Stalinism as what Stalin did, not what he said).  China became communist, but like Stalinist Russia, they were Moaist.  Today, China may be more capitalist than the US, though socialism is a key part of their economy.  Lastly, I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument that North Korea's economy is working.  Thus, communism does not work, accordingly there are few communists.  With essentially no one arguing the communist dogmas, one could use it pejoratively to mean "stupid liberal," but that is not constructive.

The socialist-capitalism of China is an interesting entity.  While calling an American a Pinko is a slur from McCarthyism, the one making the insult treads dangerous ground. Like China, America practices a form of socialist-capitalism.  To my knowledge, no economist would be caught dead using a term like socialist-capitalism.  They would probably use equally vague terms like state capitalism.  For my purposes, I want to stick with it though, because I think it proves my point better than bringing in more jargon, as, arguably, even in the most laissez-faire economy there would be some elements of socialism.  China's socialist-capitalism is coupled with a totalitarian government, but try to divorce economy from government.  China has amazing private industry.  The Foxconn factory has been getting a lot of press lately, and is undeniably a capitalist entity.  The factory (though Foxconn is Taiwanese) is a great example of Chinese capitalism.  In the US, there are literally thousands of businesses, from here and abroad, that are capitalist.  The US government plays are role in the economy through the Federal Reserve, much like China's government does.  The US government puts a vast amount of money into state run businesses, or state dependent businesses, that most people know as the military.  China also does this.  Both Presidential candidates want to continue to do this.  The Romney campaign has set its sights on PBS as part of a plan to balance the budget (something around one percent of one percent of the budget).  While PBS is a form of socialism, the military accounts for 20% of the budget, and 24% of the GDP.  This state-run or state-dependent sector of the economy is socialism.  This is not a statement of weather the military is good or bad, over- or under-funded, or weather socialism is good or bad in the American economy, simply that the word socialism applies to the military-industrial complex.

As for my relationship with socialism, it would be far more accurate, and far less hurtful to call me a socialist than a communist.  Am I a socialist, not in the strictest sense, but like Mitt Romney, and every president this country has ever had, I do take some aspects of socialism as a positive influence on capitalism.

When considering these generally left economic theories we can continue to use them how McCarthy would, but again, that is not very nice.  Thus, I would argue that they should be used correctly, to discuss economics and systems of government.  At this point, I feel like I need to talk about the right side of the spectrum.  Before I can do that, I want to make a few points abundantly clear.  First, just like the left, I will attempt to use these terms with positive or negative connotation, simply as names.  Thus, a fascist is one who, ideologically, knowingly or not, associates themselves with the values of fascism.  This is a hard line to walk.  Fascism is often associated with things like eugenics, which is generally considered abhorrent.  Yet, and I cringe at the possible repercussions of saying something like this, the hypothetical prevention of the breeding of people who would pass on undesirable genes could be argued positively (incest is frowned upon largely for this reason).  Further, as a liberal, I support an egalitarian acceptance that most Christians frown upon.  Yet, I am far too pragmatic to support the doctrines with which a true egalitarian would guide their thinking.  Thus, I am, in some ways, ill-suited to, without judgement, describe fascists without some level of judgement.  I will do my best to present a nomenclature for two types of conservatism that seem to have a growing number of Americans enamored with values that seem, to me, out of fashion for the 21st century.

The first group are the Free-market Fascists.  I am not completely satisfied with this name, but for these purposes it will work.  This group of people are nationalist, think society should be devoid of diversity, militaristic, and completely support autarky.  They differ from the original fascists in their dedication to religion, but their general unwillingness to collaborate or compromise in government does somewhat resemble an odd totalitarianism.  They claim to favor the proletariat, yet their policies almost always favor the very wealthy.  They never support workers' rights, and actively seek legislation to outlaw union actions.  To bring about their message, they favor vociferous rallies with hurtful slogans and threatening statements.  These values make them fascists (again, as an ideology, not an insult).  They differ from the Italians of the 1920s in their dedication to economics that support the very wealthy, and disadvantage the proletariat, hence the "free-market" aspect of Free-market Fascists.  A 20th century European fascist would push for a government that ensured the most fit, physically and mentally, citizenry, to reinforce their rightful place as the most advanced nation.  A 21st century American Free-market Fascist puts trust in the market to educate those who need education.

The idea for the second group of conservatives admittedly came from a pejorative description I came up with for an economist while I was listening to Planet Money.  The economist, a self-described conservative, was countering a more liberal economist who felt that no rational person would argue against stimulus-type projects that would rebuild national infrastructure projects.  The liberal economist argued that infrastructure projects are one of the things governments are for.  He argued that infrastructure does improve the economy by allowing businesses to grow, move, and communicate.  Further, he cited a report by an association of civil engineers (I do not recall which association), that stated the longer infrastructure improvement projects are put-off, the more they cost (e.g. a road could be re-surfaced now, but wait ten years and the whole road bed will need to be replaced).  The first economist, the conservative, disagreed.  He (and I do not recall his exact arguments, so I may misstate his positions) argued for the free-market to rebuild roads when needed, and, more importantly, that one cannot trust civil engineers to report on the necessity of civil engineering projects, as they would directly benefit.  I was in disbelief, so I listened to it again.  An expert, who gets paid for his expertise was arguing that expertise from experts who get paid for their expertise cannot be trusted.  This seemed the most hypocritical stance an expert could ever take, so I listened to it again.  It occurred to me that this was a Pol Pot Republican.

Thinking about this further, this economist was not the only one out there.  Everywhere, it seems, a faction of conservatives attack expertise and intelligence as something contrary to the functioning of an advanced nation.  I, perhaps even more so than the Free-market Fascists, have a difficult time thinking of this a legitimate view of the world.  I value my intelligence, what I learned obtaining an advanced degree, and the knowledge of other experts.  When I board an airplane, I am happy to know that teams of expert engineers have worked countless hours to ensure that it is safe.  When I think of commercial buildings and chemical plants I am thankful that experts have learned lessons from the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse and Bhopal.  To attack experts for being experts is unfathomable, and I, unfairly, compared this person to Pol Pot.

Yet, this group of people need a name.  Pol Pot condemned experts and urban dwellers to the rice fields, which bares resemblance to the hatred of those who are labeled "elites" by this group of conservatives.  Pol Pot then murdered 1 to 3 million of his own people, which makes it an atrocity that is incomparable in civil discourse.  Could they be Maoist Republicans?  No, that is totally illogical, like the communist fascists.  Agrarian Republicans?  It still seems nonsensical.  Proletariat Republicans?  No, none of these seem to do.  I am at something at a loss to name this group a constructive name that is congruent with precedence set by previous ideologies.  For the remainder of this post perhaps Ordinary Republicans will do (ordinary being the antonym of elite, not taken as the average republican).

With mere hours to go before election results begin coming in (reliably), and perhaps days before we know who our next president will be, I am skeptical that civil politics will return to this nation anytime soon, if they can in fact return at all.  My skepticism may stem from the fact that I have a hard time understanding the Free-market Fascists and the Ordinary Republicans.  They probably find my views equally incomprehensible.  Without understanding, I doubt we can discuss the future amicably.  Yet, I also see some hope.  If we are honest about our ideologies, and can use terms constructively, rather than with malice, maybe we can start to talk again.  I do not see politics going my way anytime soon, but if an Eisenhower Era (or even a Reagan Era) Republican was willing to have a constructive discussion about politics, policies, economics, and how we should be governed, I would be most interested to be a part of that discussion.  For that to happen though, I think we need to be honest about the factions of the parties we are part of, and the factions that we want to be in power.