Chapter 1 – Our National Best Interest
The physical science standard of rightness is rationality.
-- Andrew J. Galambos1 For many years now I have been hearing the names “conservative” and “liberal," "right wing” and “left wing.” The conservative right is usually promoted with an energetic verve; the ‘liberal’ Left is usually advocated with an arrogant condescension and with a large, but derogatory, vocabulary used only by the Left.
The terms left wing and right wing have their origin in the position the people sat in relation to the power that ran government.
Those in ‘opposition’ sat to the left, and those in agreement sat to the right. The authority at one time was the king. Interestingly, in the days of the French Revolution those who were in ‘loyal’ opposition to the king would have then been the “left-wingers.” In the war for American independence, those opposing the king would be “left-wingers” till they won then they would be “rightwingers.” Today, those opposing the founding fathers are known as “left wing” (‘liberals’). So, it is interesting that these political names, left wing and right wing, simply have different meanings in different countries at different times.2
Has anyone heard people of this Left stance propose positive alternatives to what they claim are “unworkable” plans that “benefit the rich?” I have not, but their negative criticisms reverberate continuously on television and in most newspapers. Criticism puts the person criticized on the defense. It forces rebuttals and explanations of innocence and thus dilutes any discussion of concepts.
It puts debate nearly out of the question.
The conservative point of view today is for the preservation of the intent of the founding fathers of our country. The ‘liberals’ insist on their re-interpretation of the Constitution asserting that it is a “living document,” which must change with the “evolving societal reformation.” In fact it is they who work by subtle means to bring about their form of reformation through “cultural rela2 tivism.” Such ‘relativism’ is a crass undermining and redefining of historically proven values of responsible actions. This is the inevitable tug of change versus the status quo. Disagreement is always asymmetric in terms of power. The noisy dissenters always catch more public attention than those who represent the status quo.
The trouble is, to achieve ‘social justice’ you have to create a class of political elites who demand to be the gatekeepers and arbiters of distributing other people’s wealth. As soon as such an elite class exists, the distortion of prices begins. The elites benefit personally, and the costs are diffused to those who have little political power; i.e., the common citizens carry the load.
Driven by an all-consuming conviction that they must stamp out the system of “injustice” (mal-distribution of wealth) and “capitalistic suppression of the worker,” the ‘liberal’ proponents continually work to further their program of dissolution of private property, which is the “Utopia” first theorized by the French writer, F. M. C. Fourier (1772-1837). This mad Frenchman wrote about an imaginary Utopian society based on “scientific order.” He knew nothing of science and conducted no scientific experiments to test his social theory. And he cited no examples of any success with its application.3 Today, intellectuals propagate their theoretical egalitarian programs (though thoroughly disproved by historical facts) that “all values are equally important,” and moral convictions derived from long worked-out, enduring social principles of conduct, are now to be promulgated by the ‘liberal’ agenda as relative; that is, neither good nor bad, but changeable per situation, thus not permanent. This is antithetical to the strength of morals and ethics derived from proved principles.
To a young mind desiring direction and believable authority, the sounds of social justice, equality for all, the exploitation of the worker, and the ‘imperialistic’ aims of the United States can be infectious and convincing. Reinforcement of that message comes with a rush of examples of how the poor are downtrodden by the “noncaring” capitalists who misuse the poor and deprive them of what they “deserve,” which they, the capitalists, take away from them.
There is a continuous re-iteration that the capitalists get rich by “ill-gotten” wealth. In other words, students are bombarded with the idea that “the capitalists become rich by exploiting the poor.” For such emotional utterances to those students, there is no need for thoughtful reflection or comparison, which is difficult when only one side of an issue is presented. The youthful desire to think for him- (her) self becomes influenced by what the teacher (authority) has instilled, so that is the way “to think.” With little of life’s experience and responsibilities, such indoctrinated students learn quickly, but without understanding, how to mouth the collectivist slogans of derision about the ‘despised’ Capitalism.
Many, if not most, are easily taken in by such blaming oratory rant that preposterously accuses Capitalism of those offenses. In my opinion, turning youthful exuberance into hateful political action is an atrocity.
I try hard to write clearly and precisely, but when I read statements of such cogent clarity as author Thomas Sowell’s4, I defer to his quotation: Creating mindless followers is one the most dangerous things that our public schools are doing. Young people who know only how to vent their emotions, and not how to weigh opposing arguments through logic and evidence, are sitting ducks for the next talented demagogue who comes along in some cult or movement, including movements like those that put the Nazis in power in Germany. If students haven’t been taught to think, then they are at the mercy of events, as well as being at the mercy of those who know how to take advantage of their ignorance and their emotions.
Sowell’s point is that the demagogue demands and gets conformity.
Of course, learning ceases when conformity becomes the norm for knowledge transfer. The English language is replete with terms that can have more than one meaning. Or, words can be used in different contexts to imply totally different intentions and implications.5 It is important to use precise definitions so that a listener may know for certain the meanings of the ideas being presented. In the articles and books of ‘liberal’ writings I have read, absent are precise definitions of terms, despite the continuous repetitions of their favorite expressions and criticisms.
If I know what one means when one uses specific words, I have a chance to understand the concepts that are presented. Likewise, if I present clear definitions of terms, another person can understand what I am presenting. Only then can devious and oblique meanings-of-convenience be disregarded. Clear and reproducible rational thinking is possible with clear definitions.
One example is the word revolution. It means a turning around. If one uses the word revolution to mean a turning around of ideas, but the person listening understands it to mean a war, then a misunderstanding will occur, and clarity of communication about its application is lost.
Another example is the very subject of this essay, namely, Capitalism.
If I use the word to mean free exercise of entrepreneurial activity and market exchange, and the person to whom I am speaking believes it to mean the ‘unfair’ directing of the economy, then disagreement is inevitable.
A new use and misrepresentation of the very proper word discrimination have emerged. No longer in common usage is it a discerning between good and bad actions. Earlier it used to be understood as the differentiation between honest and dishonest character or between ability and inability or as Webster’s “making or evidencing nice distinctions.” Too often now, the politically correct (pc) use is to imply the negative overtone of race and the prejudice associated with it. In the case of interviewing for a job or school entrance, then the discrimination against race versus the discrimination against dishonesty or inability can mean the difference of acceptance, but too often in today’s pc usage all forms of ‘discrimination’ are considered equally intolerable, and one must be cautious in making use of it. But, discrimination, when used correctly, remains a powerful tool to differentiate or distinguish accurately.
Diversity has now achieved front-page importance because of the June 2003 Supreme Court decision regarding the State of Michigan’s practice of ‘affirmative action.’ In his pivotal editorial, Shelby Steele6, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, wrote: Apparently diversity and race are synonymous in the mind of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who delivered the opinion of the court in Grutter v. Bollinger. “Compelling interest in a diverse student body in not prohibited by the constitution,” she wrote. So diversity, this most spurious of notions, is now undergirded with constitutionality along with race. And when race and diversity stand together as legitimate—even constitutional— principles, we have arrived at the threshold of legally sanctioned racialism. Because diversity works by group preferences, all the individuals in these beatific diverse environments must pursue a good part of their self-interest through their racial groups.
The word right is used frequently but has many meanings. It can denote the opposite to “wrong.” Right can also mean simply a direction. The word also has a political usage as in ‘right wing.’ It can also represent an entitlement (e.g., ‘right’ to medical care) or a claim like the ‘right to free speech.’ It is therefore important to be precise in the intended use of the word.
In common usage, rights have been transformed into entitlements.
Lots of victims and lots of plaintiff lawyers keep the list of entitlements growing. Actually, such lawyers are really a ‘shadow’ form of government since they work to redistribute the private sector’s resources. They enrich themselves, and the courtroom becomes their forum in which they work out the redistribution.
These are just a few examples of words that can mislead an earnest conversation if precise definitions are not forthcoming. Of course unwillingness to accept precise definitions can be a barrier to honest discussion, but in casual conversation, few people actually recognize and follow the rules of proper debate.
Too often, when conversing, people of opposite political beliefs are interested only in presenting their own thoughts. They rarely listen attentively; they merely wait for the opportunity to insert their ideas. Taught to me by my dear friend and mentor, Dr. Henry Grant, is the Latin aphorism: Audiatur et altera pars: let the other side also be heard; or in other words, listen to the other. Although the value of accurate definitions is to avert misunderstanding, philosophical disagreements will still occur.
The widespread social pathology being experienced today includes “cultural relativism” (multiculturalism), sexual promiscuity, exculpation of criminal conduct, lax standards of judging unacceptable actions, and resignation to inaccurate spelling and grammar. Loose linguistic standards extend to include ‘free speech’ of gutter words. Does this mean we must now accept this use of ‘free speech’ in expression of disrespect of parents, teachers, employers, and the law? Mario Savio, leader of the 1964, gutter “Free Speech” movement at the University of California at Berkeley, must be jumping with glee.
Another manifestation of this pathology is the ‘chic’ use of drugs in the more middle and upper income groups as well as by the ‘poor.’ The increased miseries of the poor can be traced easily to the middle-class intellectual ‘plaything’ of cultural relativism, where there is no ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ culture. Difference (but no judgment) is the only distinction between the two levels of culture in that ‘intellectual’ construct. The blame for the rapid spread of this debased cultural concept lies directly in the lap of many accepting middle-class intellectuals during the last three decades since the 1960s, even though the origins of those ideas began much earlier. This is reflected in the degenerate nature of rap, socalled ‘music’ and its large audience of naïve and rebellious adolescents.
There is a causative relationship between views that the ‘liberals’ advance and the increasingly disastrous cultural decline of the last few decades.
What is this middle class ‘intellectualism,’ and how did it develop?
Answer, it is a self-imposed concept of being ‘elite’ based upon a self-deception and an inner dishonesty, requiring a rewriting of history. An in-depth discussion of this definition and how it developed by accepting and spreading the philosophy it obtained from the Fabian socialists of Great Britain will be offered in Chapter 4. For now, it is important to understand that the general degradation of cultural values derives from those ethereal concepts of collectivism and the subjugation of the individual to the state (big government). Those ruinous convictions are doggedly pursued by those who are dedicated to pushing their agenda down our throats by any devious method they can.
Happily, free markets work the other way. They promote self-interest and the pursuit of happiness, and they are a powerful neutralization of tyranny.
The ‘liberal’ socialists have a chance to triumph if they can debase the traditional moral strength of free people. Free citizens’ defeat is easier if the socialists can degrade individual achievement by the substitution of group affirmative action, by encouraging acceptance of mediocrity, by providing political advancement of race rather than through achievement, by repudiating moral values, and by the advancement of the welfare state.
Professor James McPherson of Princeton University presented a ludicrous and weak justification for “affirmative action.” He claimed that his generation of white males received a great deal of support from faculty and families to a career, while minorities and women did not. He lamely suggested further that he was a part of a generation born “during the trough of the Depressionera birth rate,” so that he entered the job market just when the baby boom generation was being educated, at a time when relatively few people from the previous generation were around to educate them. Because he was spared the “exhausting job searches of today,” he called that “a sort of demographic affirmative action.” McPherson’s feeble conclusion was “Having benefited in so many ways from these older forms of affirmative action that favored white males,” (italics mine) he could not condemn the newer version that “seems to disadvantage this same category.” Thomas Sowell7 recognizes correctly that “McPherson’s argument confuses gratitude with guilt.” What a perverse attempt to redefine encouragement to improve oneself as an “advantage not enjoyed by minorities.” Four immediate, individual examples to the contrary are well known; namely, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Professor Walter Williams, and Radio Talk- Show Host Larry Elder (Attorney At Law), all of whom are successful members of their minority race who publicly have recalled their early parental encouragement to work hard to succeed but without “affirmative action.” Frequently, in the news and on television, one can now hear girls and women happily reporting the same thing.
‘Liberal’ intellectuals erase personal responsibility by reversing the culpability of criminals into being “victims of an unjust society.” * Add the worn justification of a “childhood of bitterness and abuse,” and they thus mitigate the effectiveness of necessary police activity and thus assail the security for neighborhoods. The result is an unprecedented increase in crime as is happening in London, England, particularly in the underclass.8 Declining personal responsibility and increasing crime statistics are occurring also in this country.
The very basis of the present Western civilization is being undermined by an ideology that maintains the opposite. Allen Weingarten9 of Morristown, N.J. lists factors that he observes have brought this gradual decline of responsibility:
1. Man is not responsible for his behavior, but society is to blame.
2. The productive deserve less, while the unproductive deserve more.
3. There is no fundamental difference between right and wrong.
4. The aim of society is to give benefits to the needy, instead of securing justice.
5. The purpose of government is democracy, rather than security by the restraint of external aggression.
Weingarten’s observations are “right on.” * Compare with the concept of responsibility based on ownership of one’s own actions, Chapter 2.
When I grew up, in our home high standards of morality and honesty were present and pervaded the family environment.
When my brothers, my sister, and I met our parents’ expectations, they gave us positive encouragement and recognition for following those models at home, school, and church. Going against those expectations garnered disapproval and reproach.
This method repudiates the popular “self-esteem” movement of Jesse Jackson that we see in today’s schools.
As we matured there seemed to be a presumption that there would be notice of our good actions by those who shared our same pattern of belief and action. In fact, that reckoning widened to the expectation that ‘being good’ would be obvious and appreciated by everyone. Whoa! That was a naïve assumption, but I have observed that this positive pattern of teaching does produce responsibility and good character in children and ultimately responsible adults. Behaviorists would say that children are programmed to copy behavior that leads to rewards. Of course, this is analogous to what markets do for investors.
However, projection of such expectation of appreciation and trust into the political arena is also naïve. Being taught the basis of the founding of this nation at home and at school with the pride in the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance, I, like most of my contemporaries, naturally expected a universal acceptance of those concepts by friends and fellow citizens. I have to admit that it was a shock (at first) to experience opposing views by ‘liberals’ and socialist-thinking types. Earlier, I was not prepared for their negativity, denunciations, and illogicality. That has changed.
Many authors have commented on the decline of family values here in the last few decades. One well-known author, William J. Bennett10, in his 1993 publication, The Book of Virtues, collected hundreds of stories in an instructive and inspiring anthology that will help children understand and develop character and responsibility.
These stories are a rich source of moral literacy and an inspiration to those seeking a strong and healthy integrity. What a contrast to the moral relevancy of the ‘liberals’ and intellectuals! Although some may see Bennett’s gambling as a flaw, I believe that it does not affect his stories of virtue because it was his personal money to lose, and it did not negatively affect others’ personal property.
The Boy Scouts of America teaches boys responsibility to each other and to their leaders. Self-reliance develops as various skills are learned. Leadership is taught and taken seriously. Honor, honesty, reliability, and usefulness to others are emphasized. The Girl Scouts teach the same principles to girls. These important attributes are learned in an atmosphere of fun, much of it outdoors.
In short, while many youth-sports programs, with their emphasis only on winning, take the attention of so many of our children and youngsters, the qualities of the Boy and Girl Scout programs are too often pushed aside. The atmosphere only of “winning” is too often at the expense of learning concern for others.
I do not wish to imply that ‘winning’ is not good. It is good.
What I wish to convey is that in learning only to win, the other qualities of character building may be minimized or left out.
There is often too little time to emphasize anything but playing the sport. However, to the credit of most coaches, good sportsmanship is still taught.
1 Andrew J. Galambos, Sic Itur Ad Astra, San Diego, California: Universal Scientific Publishing Company, Inc., 1999, p. 76.
2 Andrew J. Galambos, ibid., p. 479.
3 Edward R. Annis, M.D., Code Blue, New York: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1993, p. 108.
4 Thomas Sowell, “Artificial Stupidity,” editorial in the Press-Telegram (Long Beach, CA), April 7, 2003, p. A15.
5 Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, Northampton: John Dickens And Co. Ltd., 1969, p. 81.
6 Shelby Steele, “A Victory For White Guilt,” editorial in The Wall Street Journal, New York, June 26, 2003, p. A16.
7 Reported by Thomas Sowell, “Quota ‘logic’ ignores reality,” editorial in The Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, California: April 25, 2003.
8 Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2001, p. 181.
9 Allen Weingarten, Letters To The Editor, The Wall Street Journal, New York: December 31, 2002, p. A15.
10 William Bennett, The Book of Virtues, New York: Simon Schuster, 1993.