It is my opinion that Democrats support the Constitution only when the Constitution or the Federal Courts decisions support and provide an advantage in promoting their agenda. Democrats rarely defend the actual words of the Constitution, as defined when it was written, the “original intent” or “manifest tenor” since they believe that the Constitution should reflect current mores of our society. In other words, the Democrat Party and the left are at best Constitutional pragmatists. President Obama clearly demonstrated that he did not support and defend the Constitution when he repeatedly used Executive Orders to by-pass the Legislative Branch because he was unable to get his agenda items passed by congress. Many of his orders were deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court proving his failure to support the Constitution.
Democrats support for the peaceful transfer of Constitutional power was weak at the Inauguration of President Trump.
The 30% of the Democrat members of the House of Representatives who did not attend the Inauguration of Donald Trump also demonstrate, by their behavior, that they do not support or defend the Constitution. Actions speak louder than words. Each Inauguration where the new President comes from a different political party is a peaceful, Constitutional transfer of power. Failure to attend the Inauguration demonstrates that these Democrat Representatives do not support the provisions of the Constitution that provide for this peaceful transfer of power. Each Inauguration is a celebration of our Constitution not a celebration of the next President. Inauguration attendance demonstrates whether or not these Democrats support the Constitution and defend the processes set up to ensure the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to the other.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
News narratives stimulate fake news; and opinion reported as fact is fake news.
News narratives stimulate fake news. The fact that news agencies formulate a narrative designed to guide public opinion, including political news, is general knowledge. Accordingly, news stories are selected or rejected to promote or reinforce the “narrative. Conversely, stories that do not support the “narrative are eliminated or buried in the back of the publication, or buried at the end of a report behind other irrelevant information.
The issue is not new. The narrative of the news media concerning the Viet Nam War was changed after the North Viet Nam Army and Viet Con Communist forces launched the Tet Offensive.
In February 1968, in the wake of the Tet Offensive, the respected TV journalist Walter Cronkite, who had been a moderate and balanced observer of the war’s progress, announced that it seemed ‘more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.'”
Walter Cronkite down played the fact that the Tet Offensive was repelled by United States and South Vietnamese forces suffering one tenth the casualties of the attackers. Although South Vietnamese forces proved quite capable during the counter offensive and communist forces were severely weakened, the Tet Offensive was characterized as a defeat. To me, this misrepresentation of facts constituted fake news. The news changed the perception of the war and drastically increased anti-war sentiment in the United States. Decades later North Vietnamese generals admitted that they were defeated but understood that they only had to delay long enough for the anti-war sentiment in the United States to end the war politically giving them victory.
In my opinion, Walter Cronkite should have ended his nightly news program saying, That’s the way we choose to portray it month, day, year, instead of saying, That’s the way it was month, day, year. The same is true for most news today.
Fake news has been in the news lately as well. Once a news narrative is posited, fake news is often started on Internet social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, or other Internet News outlets. Unfortunately, traditional standards of Journalism such as source vetting and multiple source conformation, do not apply at many of these sources. Some of these Fake News stories originate with unfriendly foreign governments, like Russia or North Korea, intent on manipulating public opinion in our political process, foreign affairs, socio-economic system, and culture. Fake News has been treated as legitimate news by traditional print and mainstream broadcast news agencies without proper vetting when the fraud fits the Narrative.
Legitimate pols can become fake news, or least a misrepresentation of public opinion, when specific responses fitting the narrative are emphasized because the answers fit the narrative. Pols can also be manipulated by the order and nature of the questions leading respondents to the desired headline opinion that fits the narrative of the news agency involved. In this situation, the headline and first section of the story, or news, reinforces the narrative. Opinions that mitigate or modify the narrative are buried later in the story or left out hoping the public does not go to the complete pols for a more realistic view of the opinions of the entire pol creating fake news through omission.
The 24/7 “news” cycle that evolved with cable television introduced an abundance of editorial style expert analysis, opinion programs, and opinion segments as part of hard news programs. Internet news outlets are also heavily involved in editorial and opinion writing. Some influential bloggers also get involved in news dissemination, analysis, and opinion. These outlets often blur the distinction between news, editorials, and opinion. When the editorial opinion writing and punditry matches the narrative, opinion and expert analysis often turns into headlines and lead stories. This is especially true when the editorials and opinions concern the outcome of elections, the future of the economy, a corporation, how healthcare will change, or what the tax plan will contain, etc. This news is often just hours and pages of viral speculation. In many situations the punditry from one outlet is subsequently debated on another outlet. When opinion is reported as fact, the result is, in reality, fake news.
In my opinion, the majority of news outlets in the United States and the world are dominated by progressives and disseminate news based on the progressive narrative. This narrative opposes Biblical Christianity, the Biblical traditional family, reduction or elimination of influence of Christianity on our culture, personal responsibility and morality, and favors progressive culture, economic principles, and centralized government over Biblical Christianity, capitalistic economic concepts, and limited government.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Capitalists capitalism’s problem is the result of the behavior of some capitalists throughout history, call them Godless immoral capitalists. The behavior of a few capitalists provides evidence for the need to control the raw nature of man according to Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Smith observed that controlling this raw nature is one of the few reasons for government involvement in commerce and industry. Abuse of the labor force was the rule during the much of the Industrial Revolution. These Godless immoral capitalists abused child laborers, working women, and laborers in general who lacked viable employment alternatives. The result was a rapid rise in the labor movement which included Marxists who formed communist and socialist parties throughout the industrialized Western world. Over time, progressives and liberals combined forces with Marxists to form the modern political left.
Evidence for the statement, capitalists capitalism’s problem, in relation to socialism.
The behavior of Godless immoral capitalists is continually cited as evil and prima facie evidence that societies based on Marxist philosophy are better for humanity. Pictures of child laborers fill our textbooks as examples of the evils of capitalism. Factory fires where exits were chained on the outside to prevent laborers from taking unauthorized breaks resulting in extremely high labor casualties are cited as additional examples of the evils of capitalism. Unethical and often illegal business schemes such as Enron and Ponzi schemes like that of Bernie Madoff are also cited as evidence of the evils of capitalism. Unfortunately, in developing Third World countries abusive labor practices still occur.
Consequently, capitalists capitalism’s problem remain a major issue in the debate between capitalism and the Marxist alternatives of the left, socialism, and the progressive and liberal movements. It is interesting that while Godless immoral capitalist’s behavior is highlighted by the left as abuses of capitalism, the behavior the communist regimes of the old Soviet Union, now Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela, among others, are totally ignored by the left in these discussions.
The ratio of the corporate executive compensation to employee compensation within each corporation is an additional issue in which capitalists capitalism’s problem is paramount. Several internet sources indicate that the ratio was approximately 20 to 1 in 1950, 40 to 1 in 1980, 120 to 1 in 2000, and 200 to 1 in 2014. In a very few corporations, the compensation ratio now approaches 500 to 1. To put this in perspective, during the same period of time executive compensation increased 1000% while employee compensation increased only 11%. From the perspective of the left, the compensation differential is most concerning in the industrial manufacturing and service industries. This is especially true in situations involving labor unions or the desire of employees to join the labor movement. The following statement can be found in the online Bloomberg article, CEO Pay 1,795-to-1 Multiple of Wages Skirts U.S. Law:
When CEOs switched from asking the question of ‘how much is enough’ to ‘how much can I get,’ investor capital and executive talent started scrapping like hyenas for every morsel, said Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, in an interview. ‘It’s not that either hates labor, or wants to crush their lives. They just don’t care.’
The statement, They just don’t care concerning corporate executive’s attitude about the executive to employee compensation ratio seems to qualify as the raw nature of man. Such indifference could also be considered Godless immoral capitalist behavior, a prime example of capitalist capitalism’s problem.
During the formative years of the labor movement, the raw nature of man reared its ugly head in the form of riots resulting in property damage and human suffering. The Communist Party in the US was so deeply involved in the violence of the labor movement that federal law precludes participation in labor leadership by members of the Communist Party. This behavior included violence between competing labor unions for membership. Labor union violence continued past the middle of the 20th century. It is safe to say that Godless immoral behavior is unfortunately endemic to the human condition.
The phrase Godless immoral capitalism was coined for its relationship to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Contrary to popular opinion on the left, religion and morality have been essential in the rise of the United States of America to its position of prominence in the world today. In his Farewell Address to the Nation, the Father of our Country, George Washington, said:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. “ In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. “ The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. “ A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity (happiness). “ Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. “ Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure “ reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence, — Who can doubt that in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The Experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. “ Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?…
In my opinion, most of the current societal problems in our nation, including capitalists capitalism’s problem, are the consequence of our abandonment of Washington’s admonition about Religion and Morality.
Does the Judeo-Christian heritage of the Founders and Biblical Christianity substantiate the advice given to the United States of America by the Father of our nation? The Bible does provide numerous scriptures related to the source of wealth and the requirement to treat laborers fairly. Some relevant New International Version Bible scriptures follow:
But remember the Lord your God for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth. (Deuteronomy 8:18a).
Do not take advantage of a hired man who is (comparatively) poor and needy. Pay him because he is counting on it. Otherwise you will be guilty of sin (Deuteronomy 24: 14-15).
Honor the Lord with your wealth. (Proverbs 3:9a).
So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and fatherless, but do not fear Me says the Lord Almighty (Malachi 3:5).
Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord. (Jeremiah 17:5).
The worker deserves his wages (Luke 10:7b and 1Timothy 5:18b).
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation (Romans 4:4).
Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you. (1Thessalonians 5:12).
The Godless immoral capitalist behavior, capitalists capitalism’s problem, previously described, including the corporate executive to labor salary ratios are inconsistent with the advice of George Washington and the cited Scriptures.
In my opinion, many of the Marxist left’s objections to capitalists capitalism’s problem are justified. Prior to the early 1900’s, treatment of the labor force, including women and children, was consistent with what I call Godless immoral capitalism. Similarly, the violent behavior of the labor force as they sought to organize themselves in their effort to secure better wages and benefits and working conditions was equally Godless and immoral. The behavior of both sides in the labor management struggles was the epitome of the raw nature of man. Nevertheless, the capitalistic economy that evolved in the United States developed into the largest and most successful economy in history. Our nation also became the most potent military, political and economic power of the 20th century. In the 21st century, everything from our Judeo-Christian heritage and constitutional capitalistic political economic system is being challenged by the left.
For the last 200 years, the philosophical leadership of the left has worked to gain dominance in virtually every form of communication in the Western world including the United States. The left’s first objective was to marginalize Christianity in society. Second, the left established an educational dictatorship in the entire public education system. Third, the left has learned to use both our United States and State judicial systems, which lack effective checks and balances, to thwart the will of We the People when the left is unable to accomplish their goals through the legislative process. Progressive ideology dominates all forms of the news media, telecommunication entertainment, movie and theater entertainment, and the advertising industry which is filled with subtle social, political, and economic messages. The cinema graphic industry produces works filled with stories of excesses and adverse impacts of capitalism on society and the environment. Millennials are probably the first generation that have been exposed to progressive curricula from preschool to PH.D. and the media generated progressive agenda.
In light of the fact that Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democrat party nomination for president, the philosophically Marxist progressive agenda is gaining wide popularity with younger citizens. In polls, a surprising number of millennials favored socialism over capitalism. For millennials, capitalists capitalism’s problem is ingrained in their psyche. Wealth redistribution through heavy taxation of the œ1% is their answer to all their problems. The wealth of the 1% will pay for their higher education, eliminate their college loans, subsidize their healthcare, save Medicare and Social Security, and save the planet. They see corporate executives secure prescription monopolies for the purpose, in their mind, of securing drastic increases in prescription prices. They look at the rise in the corporate executive compensation to employee compensation ratio, stagnant or falling labor compensation compared to the unprecedented increase in corporate executive compensation; and millennials are revolted. Finally, millennials hear statements regarding the executive compensation to employee salary ratio indicating that these executives no longer ask the question, How much is in enough? but now ask How much can I get? When millennials are told that corporate executives just don’t care, they conclude that capitalists capitalism’s problem is a good reason to reject capitalism as a fair economic system.
No one can actually speak for them; but, based on remarks from his Farewell Address to the Nation, that George Washington and the other Founders as well as their Biblical Christian morality would indicate that capitalists need to make real changes in their behavior. In light of the fact that the Marxist or socialist, progressive, liberal agenda dominates all aspects of culture in the United States, it seems that capitalist leaders should begin evaluating their decisions and behavior in relation to solid moral and ethical standards.
Although it is the fiduciary responsibility of corporate executives to maximize profits for shareholders, it might be appropriate to start asking do our decisions benefit both our stockholders, and equally important do our decisions benefit our employees as efficiently as our executives have benefited from their compensation. This change in attitude toward employee management relationships would provide a positive employment atmosphere and could even have a positive effect on productivity. Asking the question, is this decision moral and ethical could also lead to reductions in potential environmental problems caused by manufacturing, energy production, and reduce land, air, and water pollution. To accommodate this change in approach, corporate boards of directors would also have to allow executives latitude to affect change.
The system of constitutional capitalism that has evolved in the United States since the Revolutionary war has given our nation the most potent political socioeconomic system of governance in history. Unfortunately, conservative and capitalistic institutions have failed to recognize the all-inclusive and pervasive influence of the left in our society. The left is now the dominant force training and evangelizing the youth of the United States of America. The cultural mores and ideology of the left dominate our education system, information system, and economic ideology of our young people.
Donald Trump is not a conservative. Conservatives cannot become complacent simply because he is a Republican. He was a pragmatic, innovative, populist. Capitalists, corporate executives, and conservatives cannot assume that the results of the last several elections, the dramatic shift to Republican office holders, indicates movement towards conservative and Republican principles and ideology in our nation. Polls regarding the attitudes of millennials show a strikingly different philosophical and ideological attitude of the next several generations of voters. Conservatives and Republicans cannot assume that these voters will always be undependable Democrat voters in the future. From the perspective of young voters completely immersed in Marxist and progressive philosophy, capitalists capitalism’s problem is a reality in their mind. The welfare of the middle and lower classes will determine the political socioeconomic future of the United States of America.
A relevant question is, How can conservatives and capitalists change the negative populist perception about capitalism that prevails in the minds of a growing percentage of current and future and young voters in the United States? The answer to that question will determine the future of the United States of America.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Russian hackers revealed Democrat corruption and disdain for our citizens and the “deplorable class.”
Russian hackers revealed a great deal about the left’s corruption and disdain for our citizens in what Democrats define as the “deplorable class.” WikiLeaks and our own news media, which provided the leaked information to voters, exposed the modus operandi of the left and the Democrat Party. Additionally, the Democrat Party must, if they hope to remain a viable political force, look into its soul and change its behavior to regain the respect of the constituents they lost in the 2016 election.
Be that as it may, the United States must formulate a realistic plan to combat foreign cyber warfare against our citizens, businesses, and government including our political process and elections. Our national government must develop a robust cyber warfare strategy that provides both impenetrable defensive and unstoppable offensive capabilities. The desired result would be cyber peace through cyber strength.
The hacked 2016 election Democrat campaign Emails exposed the corruption and disdain of the leadership of the Democrat Party at the highest levels. The Emails showed that the Democrat Party leadership was going to do everything possible to ensure that Hillary Clinton was the party nominee for the Presidency. The Emails also showed that the party leadership was willing to conspire with the news media to give Hillary Clinton the upper hand during at least one presidential debate since the Clinton campaign was given at least one debate question in advance of the debate. This act also demonstrated the bias corruption and disdain of our news media. Each individual in the United States should be asking whether this behavior was amoral, unethical, unlawful, or anarchistic. We the People must demand better; or we are also complicit by tolerating such behavior.
The last two presidential candidates of the Democrat Party have placed a large part of We the People of the United States into a Basket of Deplorables, as Hillary Clinton described us. President Obama disparaged We the People of the fly over states as people clinging to our guns and Bibles, his characterization of We the People in the left’s Basket of Deplorables. For one claiming to be Christian, his opinion of Biblical Christianity is alarming to this Biblical Christian. Both candidates exhibited their mental corruption and disdain for the political process and We the People.
Finally, the anarchism displayed by the left following the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States will only serve to solidify Deplorable Class support for him. Their demonstrations which at times turned into riots, their refusal to accept the election results, and their irrational attempts to change votes in the Electoral College show their hypocrisy, corruption and disdain for the Deplorable Class and the Constitution. For those who understand history, the Bolshevik nature of their actions is cause for great concern. The actions of the left show their true motivation and vision for the future of the United States of America.
We are at America’s Crossroad.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
In my opinion, the left, Marxists, communists, and progressives of the world were not fighting the same Cold War that the United States and our allies were fighting. For the left, the strategic “Cold War”is a philosophical ideological “Cold War.” With this thought and the recent death of Fidel Castro in mind, it seems an appropriate time to consider the place of Fidel Castro, in the world and the nature of the Cold War. After his revolutionaries defeated the Cuban dictator Batista, Castro openly embraced communism. He nationalized the economy of Cuba and sought support from the communist regime in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Old Soviet Union, today’s Russia. He brutally eliminated political opposition. With the support of the Soviet Union, Cuba became the center for communist revolutionary expansion into several countries in Latin America. Probably the most notable was Venezuela. The communist dictator of Venezuela nationalized the country’s oil industries which had been developed by North American and European petroleum companies. Cuba allowed the Soviet Union to position nuclear missiles on the island nearly bringing the world to a nuclear disaster before the missiles were removed from Cuba. The fall of the USSR effectively ended Soviet financial support of the Castro regime, and greatly reduced Cuba’s influence in the western hemisphere. From this perspective, Fidel Castro was a central figure in the Cold War in the Americas.
To me, the Cold War was a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest between the United States and the USSR, the two dominant nuclear powers of the world at the time. These two powers competed to bring allies into their spear of influence throughout the world. The Cold War ended when the United States and our allies were victorious after fall of the USSR. Dismantling the USSR in non-Russian Eastern Europe completed the process. Although the USSR was a totalitarian communist regime, it was not the only totalitarian communist regime in the world. China, North Korea, Vietnam, the communist regimes of the Eastern European Soviet bloc, Cuba, Venezuela and several other countries in Latin America were also totalitarian communist regimes. Without the support of the USSR, Eastern European countries overthrew their communist governments embracing various forms of democracy.
During the height of the Cold War, Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the USSR said, communism will outlast capitalism, not We will bury you!”
However, several powerful totalitarian communism regimes still exist in Asia and Latin America and communist revolutionaries still battle to control countries in some parts of the world. It seems appropriate to ask a question. Did we actually win the Cold War? We certainly did not eliminate totalitarian communist regimes and revolutionaries as a threat and influence in the world. Perhaps a more important question to ask is this. Did we understand the nature of the Cold War from the strategic perspective of our Marxists, communist enemies. In a 1960’s speech at the United Nations, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev used a phrase that was translated We will bury you!” A better translation of the phrase is, communism will outlast capitalism. From the standpoint of Marxist philosophy expressed in The Communist Manifesto, Khrushchev’s phrase provides a simple strategic description of the goal of communism or Marxism for the world. Khrushchev was not speaking of a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest, he was speaking of an evolutionary paced contest of philosophy and ideology, Marxism versus capitalism. Given the attitude of millennials in the United States toward Marxist ideas underpinning communism, socialism, progressivism, and liberalism, or the brutality of totalitarian communist regimes, and their lack of understanding of capitalism and this nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage, we should ask this question. Was Nikita Khrushchev correct when he said, Communism will outlast capitalism?
In my opinion, the Marxist of the socialist, progressive, liberal movement certainly out foxed the conservative capitalistic thinkers of the United States and the world. One of the principal objectives of America’s Crossroads is an informative discussion of the goals and tactics of the left as they seek to convert capitalistic societies, especially the United States, into Marxist societies. Pragmatists of the left have been formulating and slowly teaching and implementing their ideas since the early 1800’s.
When considering the question,is Marxist philosophy the basis for leftist ideology, it is important to understand that Marxist philosophy has been largely integrated into the modern social sciences. Ideas like wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, curtailing or eliminating inheritance rights, diminishing the influence of Biblical Christianity, eliminating or degrading the Biblical family among other topics are all concepts now embedded in liberal arts and social science curricula at all stages of our education system. Competition, individualism, self-confidence, personal responsibility, and strong moral and ethical values are critical elements to successful capitalistic societies. The Biblical Christian church and family are institutions where these values are taught and modeled for children by church leaders and parents. The role of the individual in Biblical Christian culture and Marxist or progressive culture is antithetical in nature. Before a society like the United States with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalist economy can be converted to society based on Marxist philosophy, the population has to embrace Marxism. To accomplish this goal, the left has achieved an educational dictatorshipwhere their ideas are taught in virtually all the liberal arts and social science curricula throughout the educational system. Marxist progressives have accomplished many of their objectives toward globalism in both domestic and foreign policy in the United States.
Finally, it is my opinion that the left has even managed to integrate its philosophy into jurisprudence in the United States. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, legal progressives slowly started to substitute case law and the opinion of judges about the Constitution for the manifest tenor and original intent of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury versus Madison was critical to this evolution in jurisprudence. Consequently, this shift in the Supreme Court’s attitude towards the Constitution exposed a flaw in our Constitution. There are no meaningful constitutional checks or balances on the decisions of the federal judiciary. Marxists and progressives on the left have succeeded in using this flaw to enact laws and regulations that could not be instituted through the legislative process.
Since the people of the United States of America have failed to understand the Cold War from the perspective of the Marxist or the socialists, progressives, and liberals, We the People are close to losing the real Cold War, the philosophical battle between communism or Marxist philosophy and capitalism. The extremely important philosophical or ideological “cold war” is not over; and, in my opinion, capitalism and conservative Judeo-Christianity is losing.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The progressive globalism contradiction is global wealth redistribution from US laborers to foreign laborers.
The goal of global wealth redistribution, globalism, is contradictory to the progressive goal of wealth redistribution within industrialized capitalistic countries. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, progressives struggled to increase the wages of the lower and middle classes, the primary work force. Activists on the left called themselves communists, socialists, progressives, and liberals depending on which term was more acceptable to society at large at the time and location involved in the world. These activists were essential to the success of the labor movement in Western Europe and North America. As a result, the wages and benefits of Western workers became the envy of the rest of the world. The contradiction, for progressives, is the fact that Western wages and benefits have resulted in comparatively high disposable income and standard of living in the industrialized Western world. For globalism, global wealth redistribution, to succeed, workers in industrialized countries must expect wage and benefit stagnation at best or decreases in their standard of living through reduced disposable income. In other words, the left gives and the left takes away, the left’s globalism contradiction.
As industrialization expanded to other regions of the world, specifically the Asian-Pacific rim countries and China, global competition also increased. Initially, lower wages and benefits in these regions allowed Asian automakers, consumer product producers, as well as Chinese steel and other consumer good producers to compete effectively in Western European and North American markets. Additionally, the fall of the old Soviet Union brought capitalistic enterprise and increased industrialization to Russia and Eastern Europe which allowed additional low-cost consumer goods to enter Western markets. The result was that Western manufacturers faced competition from newly industrialized areas where wages and benefits were lower than those in the United States and other Western countries. In the United States, our manufacturing plants, steel and special metal mills, textile mills, and consumer product manufacturing plants were old and outdated. The cost of updating these facilities as well as the time required for licensing and construction and the high cost of construction labor made new manufacturing plants even more time consuming and costly to bring on line. The time and expense of environmental impact and economic assessments adds significantly to the time required and the expense of constructing new modern manufacturing facilities.
Faced with low cost competition and the rapidly expanding global market, the globalism contradiction forced corporations to make decisions regarding manufacturing plant locations. The result was plant closures in the industrialized parts of the United States and new plant construction around the world to replace facilities closed in the US. These decisions have adversely affected the number of manufacturing jobs available, wages, and benefits in western countries like the United States. As a result, middle and lower working class wages and benefits have been at best stagnant or declining for at least two decades.
The final globalism contradiction is related to free trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP. When these agreements result in excessive trade deficits for the United States, they are effectively global wealth redistribution. This fact is contradictory to conservative ideology. Although US consumers purchase goods at a lower price, the value of the good paying jobs we lose in the exchange is roughly equivalent to the value of the trade deficit. The free trade competition results in lower cost consumer goods, but we lose good paying manufacturing jobs due to the high costs associated with US manufacturing. From the perspective of the left, opening factories in developing countries is great. Capital is redistributed from developed industrialized countries to underdeveloped Third World countries creating good paying jobs, more disposable income, and increased standard of living, global wealth redistribution. Of course, leaders and planners on the left do not discuss the sacrifices this global wealth redistribution inflicts on the middle and lower class workers of the more advanced industrialized countries. They stress that the top 1% are not paying their fair share of the costs they inflict on our workers. The question is, are workers in the United States satisfied with the answers provided by the Left?
On his last overseas trip, President Obama indicated that globalism has not leveled the world playing field as quickly as he had hoped. The 2016 election demonstrated that workers in the United States are not interested in sacrificing their standard of living to advance global income redistribution. It was the progressive globalism contradiction, stagnant or declining wages and employment in the United States, that cost progressives the Presidency in the 2016 election. This debate will be critical for the future of our country. This issue among others at this point in time and our history places us at America’s Crossroad.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
To understand progressive domestic policy it is necessary to understand that globalism is wealth redistribution. The critical concept of globalism is the statement by Marx, From each according to his ability to each according to his need wealth redistribution will occur on a global scale. To prepare people in successful, industrialized, capitalistic countries like the United States for a totally globalized economy, several precursors are necessary. Changing the minds of the citizenry to accept global wealth redistribution is probably the most difficult, but essential, step. To accomplish this goal, an educational dictatorship has been established by progressives. The second step is the left’s domestic policy. The third step is the lefts foreign and immigration policy. These three prerequisites are discussed in detail at the links provided. A great deal of progress must be made in these three areas before the final stages of global wealth redistribution can be accomplished. The left plans and thinks in evolutionary time frames. They have worked toward their goal of complete globalism, wealth redistribution, since at least the early 1800’s.
For progressive domestic policy and globalism to succeed, it is necessary to understand that both require wealth redistribution.
Some of the tactics of the left in this process are virtually invisible especially in the developed countries. From the perspective of individuals and families, the greatest difference between the people of advanced countries and Third World countries is disposable income. In my opinion, disposable income is income available beyond basic survival needs. Basic survival is simply food to maintain population vigor and vitality or a strong, healthy, and reproductive society. Safe water to drink and the ability to survive extreme heat or cold which requires adequate shelter are also basic survival necessities. The ability to stave off severe epidemics and diseases is also a basic necessity for life. Virtually everything beyond these survival necessities constitutes disposable income. Meeting these needs constitutes the fixed costs of life at the survival level. The more income a population has to secure amenities above these survival needs, the greater their disposable income.
The left has numerous resources and tools available for their closure of the disposable income gap between advanced capitalistic countries and Third World countries. Incremental increases affecting regulatory policies that increase production costs and higher taxes on fixed cost products and services like food, shelter, water, and healthcare are stealthy methods of reducing disposable income in advanced countries. In addition, taxes and regulations that increase costs of unnecessary necessities, such as advanced transportation systems, entertainment, recreation, and technology related to the basics of the good life decrease disposable income available for these necessities in industrialized Western cultures.
Similarly, excessively high business income and property taxes as well as business and financial institution regulations reduce available capital for business expansion. One of the most detrimental regulations has been Obamacare which mandates employee health insurance coverage for all businesses with 50 or more employees. This regulation stifles business growth and profitability. Small businesses either restrict growth to less than 50 employees or increase their prices to cover increased costs. Banking and financial regulations such as increased cash reserve requirements for banks reduce the supply of capital for business improvements or expansion. Financial regulations also cause a reduction in the number of local banks further reducing the supply of capital available to many small businesses. These actions result in lower product and service supplies resulting in increased costs. Until the current administration reduced regulations and taxes, these costs caused corporations to move their headquarters or factories overseas to reduce overhead costs. Loss of productive capacity also increased costs. When taxes and regulations increase, the resulting cost increases are added to fixed costs related to the real or perceived necessities for life, thus reducing disposable income in developed countries.
Possibly the most powerful tool in the progressive stealth toolbox is global environmentalism. In the United States, the environmental movement has been supported by both Democrat and Republican administrations. Republican support shows that they support reasonable efforts to maintain safe water, clean air, and stable ecosystems. Republicans, however, do not support regulations that have adverse effects on the quality of life of our citizens by increasing fixed costs of living. One of the strongest proponents of environmentalism has been the United States federal court system. Our federal courts usually side with environmentalists. Often, these court decisions have the effect of decreasing supplies of lumber products, agricultural production, other renewable natural resources, and nonrenewable natural resources, both petroleum and mineral extraction. Environmentalists also work actively to reduce planned, and in the not too distant future, eliminate existing hydroelectric and irrigation dam projects. Many existing Hydro projects are facing their fifty-year environmental impact reviews in the near future. In all these critical areas of our fixed consumer economy, the result is a decrease in disposable income as fixed costs of the basic necessities of life increase. Environmental regulations associated with global warming have the same impact. They increase the fixed costs of both real and perceived necessities for life. Costs of heating, cooling, energy production, manufacturing, and transportation and sales of consumer goods, constitute increases in fixed costs in industrialized societies.
From the left’s perspective, the stealthy beauty of the entire environmental toolbox is the fact that saving minnows, spotted owls, or rare lizards, sounds so progressively wonderful and feels so good to a large portion of the populace, the urban dwellers. The impact on their disposable income and quality of life is irrelevant to them. After all, they already have enough, until they start losing too much of what they currently have.
In the United States, middle class voters in the northeastern industrialized states who experienced stagnant wages and rising fixed costs for a decade voted for change. They voted against the status quo and declining disposable income because they started experiencing the reality of global wealth redistribution on their quality of life.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The terms amoral, unethical, unlawful, and anarchy represent a progression and degradation of societal behavior and cultural norms. It is my contention that virtually every segment of society, culture, and the population in general in the United States is currently in one or more of these stages of degradation. Politics now includes anarchy based on video releases showing that rioters have been hired by one party to disrupt campaign events of other parties. The idea that politics is a blood or combat sport demonstrates clearly that morality, ethics, and lawful behavior are the tactics of political losers. Politics is now amoral. Some businesses are amoral, unethical, and unlawful. Such businesses could be called godless immoral capitalists. These businesses constitute one of the left’s greatest arguments against capitalism. Some communities in our largest cities are characterized by anarchy at best and urban warfare at worst. The sexual assault environment on far too many of our nation’s college campuses could be termed sexual anarchy. Unfortunately, these problems have been a part of humanity from antiquity. Left to our “raw nature,” humans are at best amoral.
Adam Smith wrote that one of the primary functions of government is controlling the raw nature of man especially as it pertains to business and commercial ventures. Such control would extend to labor management relationships, business competition, and fair and equal access to capital and land. In spite of the fact that progressives view themselves as good and virtuous, they think that legal control of the “raw nature of man” should extend to economics and virtually all aspects of society and human interaction except sexuality and abortion. In their amoral view, the rest of humanity, including the religious, lacks virtue and sufficient intellect to control their “raw nature.” Since Biblical Christian intellect is clouded by a restrictive institutionalized moral code and outmoded view of human interactions and personal responsibility, our approach to controlling the “raw nature of Man” is not acceptable to progressives. This has been the view of philosophers on the left for at least two centuries.
Many on the left are members of various organized religious groups. Many of these groups are among what Christian conservatives term cultural Christianity. They often pick and choose what parts of the Bible they consider relevant today which contributes to the general amoral societal attitude. One prominent Democratic activist even stated that there should be a revolution in the Catholic Church because it was not sufficiently democratic. That is to say religion, Christianity, should become amoral and accept the current mores of society.
On the other hand, followers of Biblical Christianity understand that Christianity is a relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior for the purpose of individually sharing the love of Christ and serving the world in Christ’s name. Christianity is not a social club or a business. Biblical Christians understand that God’s word expressed in the Bible is our guide for service and morality. Biblical Christians understand that Jesus meant what he said in the following statement:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfilled them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mathew 5:17-19, NIV).
The teachings and laws of Christianity do not change as cultural mores change. This is the major difference between Biblical Christianity and cultural Christianity. It is the difference between Christian morality and ethics and the amoral nature of society today.
In Biblical Christianity, the concept of repentance, turning away from a lifestyle and associates that lead to temptation and violation of God’s laws, becomes a natural act of love through Christ. When a woman was caught in the act of adultery and brought before Jesus for condemnation, Jesus told her accusers that the one who is without sin should start the punishment of the woman. After her accusers all left, Jesus forgave her and admonished her to repent saying,
Go now and leave your life of sin (John 8:11b, NIV).
The woman did repent and soon became an important member of the early Christian church. Biblical Christians follow Christ and the teachings of His Word, the Bible.
Understanding that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to human behavior, many believe that the pace towards social and behavioral anarchy in our nation is increasing at an exponential rate. Mass media, telecommunications, the news media, pop music, the movie industry, the Internet, and social media all promote various levels of amoral, unethical, and unlawful behavior leading to many of the aspects of anarchy observed in our society today. Behavior that was once illegal is now legal. Language and Behavior that was once considered immoral is now accepted and commonplace. In addition, both our courts and the education system have condoned and in some cases promoted the increasing amoral nature of our culture. Moral relativism has become a hallmark of our culture, education system, and the legal system.
Progressives have long sought and promoted the decline in morality that is taking place in our country today. Two examples from the philosophical left include Marx and Bukharin. In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following regarding religion, especially Christianity:
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.
In the 1983 publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, the editors discuss a treatise on historical materialism by Nikolai Bukharin, who wrote,
religion (especially Christianity) must be opposed actively since it would take too long for it to die out of its own accord (p. 415).
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the philosophy behind legal education began to change in a similar manner. The concept that the manifest tenor of the Constitution, the original intent, was the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of statutes and the mention of God and Biblical precepts was eliminated as valid principles in understanding the law. Changes in the precepts and understanding of law started at the Harvard Law School and soon became the standard in the teaching and practice of law at all our universities and courts. The new amoral standard was that case law and precedent was more important than the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Two statements by legal scholars and jurists demonstrate this point. John Chipman Gray, summarized the concept by stating,
The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.
Approximately 50 years later, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice from 1902-1932, offered a similar view of the law stating,
[Law is] simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of society at a given point in its history, beliefs that have triumphed and nothing more.
In the 150 years since this concept was introduced, the Federal and State Courts have been used to alter the Original Intent or manifest tenor of the Constitution, set legal precedents, and overrule the will of We the People and the legislative process.
It is my opinion, that increasing the incivility and coarseness of our culture was part of the progressive plan to change the United States of America. Our nation is becoming more and more amoral, unethical, unlawful, and anarchistic. The role of Biblical Christianity and the Biblical family which teaches individual responsibility and accountability is incompatible with the progressive vision for a global society and global wealth redistribution. Progressives have a plan and a vision for our country. They feel that they are patriots seeking the best future for the United States of America and the world.
Progressives prefer an amoral society devoid of deep Christian influence.
The founders of our nation also had a plan. Our two founding documents the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are the foundation of their plan. The 85 detailed essays on the Constitution known as The Federalist Papers were a commentary on the Constitution written in support of its ratification. Many conservatives feel that these three works delineate the best and brightest future for the United States of America and serve as a model for all who desire freedom for themselves and their country regardless of where they are in the world. We are also patriots.
The question is, which vision will prevail, the amoral progressive vision or the Founders’ vision? Every person in the United States of America has that critical choice to make in each and every election.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Progressive foreign policy is based on Marxist leftist ideology and begins with the premise that all property and wealth will eventually be held in common. Marx stated it, from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed equally among all people. Contrary to the preferred progressive assertion that Marxism is not dead; but, Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences. The left plans with an evolutionary pace in their journey toward a society where from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need wealth is distributed among all the people. In their vision, societal changes occur first regionally, then nationally, and finally globally. Preparation for the time, when the state withers away, begins with the first steps of wealth redistribution in each state or country.
Although no one on the Left overtly states that they support progressive foreign policy in which the state “withers away,” their speeches and actual policy actions are consistent with a “withered” state of the United States on the world stage. The philosophical underpinning of this claim is discussed in detail below.
In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx made the following statement regarding national sovereignty and Progressive foreign policy:
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
Working men have no country.
National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie (upper ruling class, land owners, and capitalists), to freedom of commerce, to the world market.
The supremacy of the proletariat (working class) will cause them (countries) to vanish still faster.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end (Emphasis added).
In A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, Engels is quoted describing the incremental nature of the abolition of nations as follows:
The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society “ the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society “ this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then withers away of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished.’ It withers away (p. 467).
Ultimately, the Left, Progressives, and Liberals, as Marxists, are content with the possibility that the United States of America could eventually wither away. The result would be a worldwide Dictatorship of the Proletariat or a border-less global political economic system where wealth will be distributed equally among all people.
In large Constitutional capitalist republics like the United States with strong economies, universal K-12 education, strong secondary education system, and globally significant military power, any progress towards the socialist state is incrementally slow. The left understands that several important influences of capitalistic and predominantly Judeo-Christian societies must be reduced, controlled, or when possible eliminated. In states like ours, the mindset or worldview of the vast majority of the population must be converted from a Biblical Christian and entrepreneurial or capitalistic mindset to the socialist worldview.
To accomplish this goal in the United States, virtually every communications medium and major institutions in our culture become either tools or targets in the incremental march towards socialism envisioned by Marx. Two of the most important cultural influences are the Biblical Christian church and family. These two institutions teach and model the important relationship between the individual and God and personal responsibility. As already discussed, individualism is incompatible with implementation of the agenda of the left.
Since Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences, the left has achieved an educational dictatorship from preschool to Ph.D. level programs. The applicable principles of Marxist philosophy are now taught in each liberal arts and social science discipline. With these educational programs, each new generation of citizens becomes more tolerant of and often in favor of a more socialist society. Under these circumstances, each generation is closer to the time when the state withers away.
The Merriam Webster on-line dictionary defines state as a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign or possess supreme political power. For the state, including the United States of America, to wither away, the essential elements of state sovereignty related to domestic and foreign policy, must be whittled away.
Probably the most critical function of national sovereignty is national defense. Each of the last three Democrat presidencies, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, significantly reduced the national defense budget during their administration. These reductions included reduction in weapon system development, strategic weapons development, current weapon system procurement, and reductions in manpower. Cessation of ballistic missile defense systems and reductions in short range missile defense systems and deployment in Eastern Europe by the Obama administration have major consequences in light of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs, testing, and ballistic missile developments. In my opinion, the Clinton reduction in combat unit numbers increased both the number and duration of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In light of the previous reductions in military capabilities, our commanders are concerned about the United States military ability to fight wars on two fronts. As our military capacity decreases and the capacity of other nation states increases, the possibility that the United States withers away into a single global socialist society increases over time. This is the covert or stealth nature and philosophy of progressive foreign policy.
Border control and security, as well as, sound immigration policy and laws are essential for every state to maintain its sovereignty, heritage, and national identity. Border control and security also limits the flow of illegal commerce, drugs, and immigration and improves control of legal international trade. When illegal commerce and drug trade occurs, wealth is transferred to the countries of origin of the products and drugs. Similarly, international trade agreements that promote large trade deficits with much of the world constitute wealth redistribution on a global scale.
Every sovereign state has a national identity, heritage, culture, and legal system. The Founders understood the significance of this concept. John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, eloquently stated this sentiment in The Federalist No. 2 where he wrote,
Providence (God especially when conceived of as exercising this) has in a particular manner blessed it (Independent America)for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion (Primarily Christianity with all its orders and denominations), attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other….
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us.
In his Farewell Address, 1796, President George Washington, expressed similar sentiments when he wrote,
“The name American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts “ of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”
Washington’s farewell address also included a warning against the dangers of political parties and partisanship. His warning still has merit. Our Founders understood the importance of our country’s common Judeo-Christian heritage, independent entrepreneurial spirit of the citizenry, shared enthusiasm about their future, and commitment to the rule of law embodied in our Constitution and the Constitutions of our first 13 states.
To the Founders unity of purpose was important to the future of the new nation. When immigration policy allows immigrants who do not believe that they should assimilate into the culture of their new country, immigration slowly degrades the unique character of any state. The unique nature of each state would be altered over time, and the state would become a mirror of the global population supporting progressive foreign policy. The process hastens preparation of the culture in each state to eventually wither away into a single global socialist society. For these reasons, leftist thinking encourages open borders, and unlimited, uncontrolled immigration as part of their progressive foreign policy agenda. Consequently, our immigration policies should ensure that immigrants wishing to form enclaves and interject their own system of law and disparate codes of morality and behavior with respect to women and minorities should not be allowed to enter our country. Such beliefs are inconsistent with our Constitution and culture.
The Center for Immigration Studies, 1995, publication, Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act described the effect of immigration policy on culture and society of the United States. The publication starts as follows:
“This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.”
So said President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the (bill). The legislation, which phased out the national origins quota system first instituted in 1921, created the foundation of today’s immigration law. Contrary to the president’s assertions, it inaugurated a new era of mass immigration which has affected the lives of millions.
Progressive foreign policy promotes global weakness, porous borders, and immigration policies that dilute our unique cultural heritage and global national identity.
Proponents repeatedly denied that the law would lead to a huge and sustained increase in the number of newcomers and become a vehicle for globalizing immigration as a component of progressive foreign policy. Prior to enactment of this law, immigration made up about 10% of annual population growth. After 25 years, immigration made up 39% of population growth. Prior to this law, about 70% of the immigrants were of European decent. In 25 years, about 40% of immigrants were Hispanic and Latin Americans, and 35% were Asians. Discounting millions of illegal immigrants, total immigration tripled. The increase was augmented by non-quota admissions and provisions for family reunification.
Finally, when leaders of a state, like the United States of America, fail to lead as they led in the past in international affairs, either diplomatically or militarily, that state’s power, prestige, and influence will wither away. Unfortunately, some withering occurred when the Bush Administration faltered in its response to Russian aggression in the country of Georgia. The Obama Administration stopped deployment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe when Russia complained or threatened retaliation with respect to the deployment. This administration failed to take any meaningful diplomatic or military steps when Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and failed to make any significant steps toward ending Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. The Obama Administration failed to leave a stabilizing force in Iraq; and it failed to act when Syria used chemical weapons in its Civil War after a stern warning by President Obama. The Obama Administration also failed to take a leadership role that could have changed the Middle East during or shortly after the Arab Spring, including failure to support dissidents in Iran. The administration also chose to lead from behind rather than lead the overthrow Moammar Qaddafi in Libya or insuring that Libya was stable after the overthrow. China is building and militarizing islands in international waters with no apparent or meaningful actions by the Obama Administration. In the administrative action resulting in Iranian nuclear weapons program restrictions, the Obama Administration apparently negotiated from a position of weakness. Secret side monetary, banking, and facility inspection agreements, demonstrate this weakness. Finally, the Obama Administration demonstrated its weakness by allowing the Russian military, including its Air Force, to support the Asad regime in the Syrian Civil War. These actions all contributed the “withering” effects of progressive foreign policy.
In my opinion, whether intentional or not, President Obama’s progressive foreign policy activities have allowed the power, prestige, and influence, of the United States to wither away internationally, as Marx predicted. The actions of the Obama Administration serve as a prime example of the ways that the reality of the progressive agenda and progressive foreign policy are part of the incremental manner in which Marxist philosophy is implemented on a global scale.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Contrary to popular conservative thought, in the United States, our progressive domestic policy is a practical reality. Marxism, the philosophical basis for progressive ideology, is a social theory asserting that all property and wealth will be held in common, and as Marx stated it, from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed equally among all people. The editors of A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, 1983, asserted that Marxism is not dead; but, Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences and incorporated into a great deal of our domestic and foreign policy practices.
Pragmatic efforts to hasten evolution toward the global society envisioned by Marxists began in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Following publication of The Communist Manifesto and Origin of Species, the concepts of atheism, and both societal and biological evolution became more widely embraced by academicians in the United States and the world. Liberal and progressive scholars began to dominate the social science faculties of most universities in the United States. This was particularly true in mass communication disciplines such as journalism, liberal arts and social sciences including psychology, psychiatry, sociology, philosophy, performing and visual arts, economics, and law.
By 1870, Harvard University and the Harvard Law School fully embraced these concepts. Contrary to earlier teaching, references to God and Scripture, as well as Constitutional Original Intent were eliminated from legal education and the practice of law. The concept of case law to develop new doctrines and principles incrementally over time was also introduced at Harvard. The rest of the nation’s universities followed suit. John Chipman Gray, summarized the concept by stating,
The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.
In the 150 years since this concept was introduced, the Federal and State Courts have been used to alter the Original Intent of the Constitution, set legal precedents, and overrule the will of We the People, and the legislative process. In many instances, liberals and progressives have used both Federal and State Courts to accomplish their progressive social objectives when We the People do not support their proposals. The United States Supreme Court decision, in favor of same sex-marriage opposed by We the People in numerous state referenda, is a prime example. In my opinion, many Federal Court decisions have been aided by incorrect application of the Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison decision. Court decisions of this type make progressive domestic policy the law of the land. In my view, such decisions are inconsistent with judicial good behavior.
Much of our progressive domestic policy is already Marxist.
In the United States, liberals and progressives in the Democrat Party and moderate or liberal Republicans have introduced and passed legislation, and developed progressive domestic policy positions and programs that individually and collectively quicken the pace at which wealth is spread among all people in our country and eventually the world. The goal is that each state, including the United States of America, eventually withers away. Wars, depressions, recessions, and periods of substantial economic growth cause ebbs and flows in progress toward the world they envision.
The section, of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists, provides strategic details for incremental progressive domestic policy initiatives that gradually eliminate capitalism and private property. Marx wrote,
These measures will of course be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries (like the United States) the following will be pretty generally applicable:
“Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” (All added parenthetical remarks in this section describe existing progressive domestic policy . Federal regulations, especially environmental regulations, limit uses of private lands regarding mineral and petroleum extraction, forestry, range and grazing management, agricultural practices crop choices and subsidies, and watershed management. Local and state zoning ordinances limit the uses made on private property. Each of these limitations restricts the way private property can be used, increases production costs, and in land uses related to energy, mineral extraction, and agriculture increases fixed living costs for citizens. For some industries, regulation ads costs sufficient to degrade their competitiveness in the global market. When these costs are combined with high US labor costs and taxes, some industries moved offshore to survive. Each of these factors is an incremental step toward abolition of property and use of property for public purposes.)
“A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
(In the United States the concept of progressive taxation is now ingrained in our political and economic discourse.)
“Abolition of all right of inheritance.”
(In the United States, gradually increasing death or inheritance taxes are incrementally moving toward abolition of the right of inheritance. The progressive purpose of these taxes is to instill the idea that abolition of all right of inheritance is one of the ways for the rich to pay their fair share in the progressive plan to redistribute wealth from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need.)
“Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.”
“Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”(The United States Federal Reserve Bank controls interest rates, the amount of currency in circulation, and federal laws place strict controls on the banking and securities industries. However, the government does not control the flow of capital with an exclusive government monopoly.)
“Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.”(Many large metropolitan areas in the United States have government owned mass transit train and bus systems. Many politicians are proposing high-speed train systems funded and operated by either state or federal governments.)
“Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wasteland, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”(Although Federal regulations, especially environmental regulations, do not constitute state ownership of factories and instruments of production they do constitute state control of factories and instruments of production. Air and water pollution regulations often limit the type and/or size of industrial plants built on private property and emission levels for carbon fuel engines. These regulations ensure clean air and water. The issue is that technology allows pollutant detection at increasingly lower contamination levels, and thus, more stringent regulations are mandated, even when the requirements are below safe limits. The result is increased costs that can make the industry products too expensive to be economical. Local and state zoning ordinances limit the uses of factories and instruments of production on private property. For some industries, regulation ads costs sufficient to degrade their competiveness in the global market. When these costs are combined with high US labor costs and taxes, some industries must move offshore to survive. Each of these factors is an incremental step toward abolition of property and use of property for public purposes.)
“Equal liability of all labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”(Local, state, and federal minimum wage laws and proposals supporting mandated profit sharing incrementally promote the idea of equal liability of all labour. During the formative years of the labor movement, communists and socialists played major roles organizing workers, gaining recognition and legal status for unions, and securing higher wages and better benefits for union membership. Unions have made great strides toward Equal liability of all labour. The high cost of labor in the United States caused many of our industries to move overseas or fail because they were unable to compete in the global market against competitors with lower labor costs. In the United States, unions have strong support from the political left.)
“Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.”
“Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.” (In the United States, progressives have established an educational dictatorship. Socialists and progressives in the Democrat Party are proposing free or highly subsidized secondary education for all or at least families below a threshold income level. This is an expansion of government-sponsored loan programs and progressive style wealth redistribution. Abolition of children’s factory labor was a goal that should have been supported by all. Children’s factory labor was abhorrent and a blot on capitalism. The fact that Marx added the qualifier, in its present form, is a blot on Marxist philosophy. ).
Free education for all children has been promoted in our country since colonial days. Sound agricultural and renewable natural resource practices have been promoted for at least 150 years. Both are essential for a flourishing, capitalistic, constitutional republic like the United States of America.
The left, regardless of the terms used to describe their ideology, Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, liberal, moderate Democrat or liberal Republican, follows a specific societal plan to incrementally or evolutionarily change and the world into the global economy envisioned by Marx. The left thinks and plans in evolutionary terms and is secure with an evolutionary pace, at least 170 years, in their journey toward a society where from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth is distributed among all the people. Once progressive domestic policy normalizes wealth redistribution in most countries, the left will turn to their final goal for foreign policy. The left, Marxists, will turn to formulating policies that cause states or countries, including United States of America, to “wither away.”
