Why I'm Not A Leftist
Ok, I couldn't resist one more. Blame Prager for stimulating my mind. The plain and simple truth for why I am not a leftist is that it just doesn't work. The great socialist experiments have been tried and they have failed.The elite left tout the age old line that they are for the little guy, but who is this little guy anyway? And what of his psychology? Victim or conqueror? Industrious or entitled? Inferior or self-confident? Are you the little guy or gal as it may be?
The American left heralds the social policies of the European enlightened, but as stated they are not working, for they cannot be sustained long-term economically. This is the tacit sentiment of the no vote regarding the EU constitution. As David Brooks' piece in the New York Times this morning explicates:
"This is the psychology of stagnation that shaped voter perceptions. It wasn't mostly the constitution itself voters were rejecting. Polls reveal they were articulating a broader malaise. The highest "no" votes came from the most vulnerable, from workers and the industrial north. The "no" campaign united the fearful right, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, with the fearful left, led by the Communists."
Fear and Rejection. Timely, clarifying, and appropriate. I hope you read it in it's entirety.
posted by Grisby @ 4:13 PM
3 Comments:
No excuse. No concession. I've been just a little distracted, but I will come back our previous dialogue.
Now, you pose an interesting question and the obvious answer is yes, mostly. Underestimating human nature, i.e, corruption, is precisely why communism didn't and doesn't work. Ergo, it is a pie-in-the-sky ideal that isn't right. So yes to the Macro level aspect of the question. Mostly, on the micro level, for let's apply it to business. One can have all the right tools and systems in place, but without a little luck (or Providence as it were), the enterprise could still fail, which doesn't mean it was wrong, but that of course begs the question concerning God's will for the individual; hence, perhaps it wasn't right, but then again, perhaps no. That is why I say you raise an interesting question.
Because it has been a miserable failure. It didn't work then and doesn't now. But let's not limit it to communism. Socialism is also failing. The no vote re: the EU constitution (see link to Brooks) shows the failure to thrive economically in the population(lack of productivity, 10% unemployment, entitlements, etc.) Today, June 10, Canada's supreme court ruled that the single payor healthcare system is harmful to the Canadian people and thus is failing. And this from a society committed to seeing liberalism flourish. Specifically, people wait & die. Back to Europe--not affordable. This is the crux: if you don't measure outcomes, on what basis to you make attributions regarding the efficacious nature of an idea?
Now you are correct that all governments will engender corruption, for all people are basically flawed, i.e., not intrinsically good. That being said, inspite of the corruption we see in our own society, is are model working or not? Has a free market worked? Yes and greed plays a part in that. But also life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness starts with the individual and ends up transforming the world. Not having a system of measurement grounded in whether or not something works is confusing and ends up being ivory tower prattle as opposed to serious inquiry.
Two last quips: Insanity is doing the exact same thing day in & day out but expecting different results. If a research design is faulty of what value is it since it skews the results? Again, on what basis do we attribute an idea's merit? Appreciate your comments.
I am still unclear as to how you propose we measure an idea's merit.
Certainly, slavery isn't right on moral grounds and is therefore a blight on the whole of the history of western society. However, as you point out, slavery's existence did not cripple our society; meaning the model didn't crumble under the weight of slavery. Rather as you stated, our society "flourished."
That is only part of the story however; for in what sense is flourishing defined? If the preservation of the Republic is the criteria then yes absolutely. But certainly there were great economic stressors in the south during this period of our nation's history and these economic factors brought much to bear upon the desire for secession. Furthermore, when coupled with the moral injustice of slavery, the Republic may not have withstood such a test. And, had we not had such a truly resolute leader, committed to the purpose that such a societal model not fail--specifically, "...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."(Gettysburg Address)--we may not have weathered the storm.
The belief in our form of government, the rightness of our model, or cause as it were, did not waver with Lincoln and thus our nation prospered.
In the examples I've given or alluded to, we saw that they contributed to(or are presently contributing to)the collapse of the system, which is why they failed/are failing.
We are in complete and total agreement that a successful model will evolve, has to evovle, continously striving to better itself. Whether that means righting wrongs (as in the horror of slavery, civil rights, welfare reform, etc.), much has been done and can continue to be done to improve.
My point now and previously is that all systems are inherently flawed and we seem to be in agreement on that. Since that is the case then we may reason that IF a model works then it is larger than singular issues. The hallmark of which is seen by the lack of placation with mediocrity--a desire to tweak and improve upon the model. This is a point you've judiciously made. Therefore, the societal evolution described above is necessary to the model's survival and is largely self-reinforcing of the model's efficacy. If singular issues, like taxation or ownership, collapse the entire system, how can we claim
the system is right but failed (note that I didn't say flawed)? So, if I'm wrong--how do you propse we measure the "rightness" of an idea?
Lastly, if the ivory tower comment was offensive, please accept my apology. My intention, was to elucidate the notion that intellectual elitist tend to promulgate ideals regardless of evidence. Hence, the fact that a great many professors in the university trend to leftism, socialism, communism, fill in the 'ism. I did not mean the comment as a personal reflection on you or your reasoning.
Post a Comment
<< Home