Signal Wave
A Delayed Reckoning, Pt III
Most right-wingers are still quite confident that they are right.
If I’m going to join hands with the right wing, some of that will have to change.
I don't want them to admit they're wrong because I want to feel right, nor because I want to extract some kind of payment from them for being wrong--or for disagreeing with me. I need them to admit they're wrong because their horrible ideas led us to this pass. Even if a successful revolution, whether political, social, or military, could happen because independent leftists joined hands with the populist right, it would avail us little if we continued to hold the same beliefs that got us here.
Here are the four pillars of neoconservative thought:
Government should be small, because it tends to be untrustworthy. Accumulating power in the public sector leads to corruption and authoritarian abuse of the populace. The same goes for accumulating wealth in the public sector. Taxation, except for extremely limited purposes like maintaining interstate highways, is basically theft.
Commerce and finance are morally neutral, impersonal, and impartial. As such, they are more trustworthy than any public enterprise, and competition in the private sector usually leads to the success of the meritorious and the promotion of best practices.
If your government tells you there is a threat, foreign or domestic, you should always believe them and give them more money to build weapons, and more citizens to serve in their armies. You should also remove any legal obstacles that restrain the government from responding to these threats, such as the separation of powers described in the Constitution, or the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. The police, as the domestic arm of the government’s military activities, are always right and deserve immediate obedience.
And the fourth...
Those who disagree with me are morally wrong, possibly enemies.
You’ll notice there are some contradictions between these statements, especially between #1 and #3. Somehow, neoconservatives convinced the entire nation that military and security spending are not government spending. That’s why the greatest deficit hawks in the country approve “defense” budgets in excess of 700 billion dollars and still call for “small government.” By “small government” they do not actually mean a government with a small budget, but only mean a government whose large budget is directed into the coffers of the security state and the rich, while the rest of society scrabbles for crumbs. Or, more accurately, falls apart.
In addition to these economic contradictions, there’s a more fundamental one at the heart of conservatism. They all seem to believe that they are freedom fighters against government tyranny. The right is “anti-government;” everybody knows that. Yet most of them supported both Patriot Acts, and even believed in allowing the government to torture people and imprison them indefinitely, because...well, because the people being tortured were bad people.
The roof supported by these pillars is the worst idea of all. I call it the idea that destroyed civilization. It's a weapon: the terminator gene of the intellect. It was first shared with the general public in a 1970 New York Times article: "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits," by Milton Friedman.
Friedman said:
… there is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays in the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.
Only blind faith could believe that the first part of that sentence--there is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits--could ever co-exist with the last--so long as it stays in the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud. But even if an enterprise dedicated simply and entirely to its own profit could co-exist with any rule set whatsoever, rather than devising ingenious ways to eliminate that obstacle, that is still a deadly idea. Commerce and finance produce wealth; wealth produces power. Therefore the "private sector" attracts power as surely, and perhaps more reliably, than the public sector does. Left with no internal notion of social responsibility and no government regulation, the world of business and finance has no checks on its power. American history makes plain that you cannot have even a republic, much less a democracy, without checks and balances; in fact, you probably can't even have a decent monarchy without checks and balances (I believe the man who came up with the idea was a French monarchist).
Thoughts?
UPDATE: It occurs to me that some might thing bigotry is another pillar of neoconservative thought. I didn't include it because it's not among the ideas that they openly lay claim to--if a neoconservative promotes bigotry, it's generally on the sly. That's one reason, I think, that they don't like Donald Trump--he's too open about it.
Comments
How are you all this morning?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Hi
The conservatives are against "socialist democrat liberal" government not conservative government, and no matter which party is in power, everything government does "bad" is the fault of left. The left is the enemy of both dems and conservatives, and must be stopped. True bipartisanship.
I don't think the "right" owns all of their base. Many of them agree with what progressives (Bernie) put forward and I think there's room for joining hands, but both the pols and the capitalists want to prevent that. So it's wedge issues, dog whistles, insults, canceling and wokeism for us. Also, send them money, their donors are stingy these days now that they have most of what they want.
"their donors are stingy these days"
"now that they have most of what they want."
if only...
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Sorry, pols,
No money for you, chickie-boo. Go talk to your rich friends.
As a journalist once overheard at a DC rooftop party:
"Do you know there's people out there making it on $80,000 a year?"
They really shouldn't say things like that where people can hear them.
And people think Americans are violent.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It's a good point that
people consider themselves right and left for many different reasons--and that a lot of the people who consider themselves "right" are as disgusted by "their" party as I am by "mine."
That was a lot of dick fingers for one sentence!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The neocons have the cover of splintering factions
They who control the narrative .. blah, blah, blah.
Since left, right, center, liberal, conservative, etcetera
are only labels the PTB and their media flunkies use to
stoke more confusion and division, I like to think in broader
concepts. Irreducive of labels.
The social need for cooperation, peace, equality, justice and
healthy environmental actions is the party to which I support.
It is a big tent.
Thanks for your series cant stop!
I know a lot of people feel that way.
The reasons I think different:
1)History matters, and left vs right has defined American history from at least 1932 to 2010--and a lot of the history of the rest of the world, too. We need not be confined by the terms, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with simply tossing them aside. It's like tossing history aside. I think no good can come of deliberately forgetting history--or pretending the past has no significance. It sounds liberating, but tends to show up on the resumes of authoritarian bastards. I prefer to remember where I came from, to the best of my ability--and not to deny that the past has brought me to who and where I am.
2)Up until 2010, most of the people in this country had no problem defining themselves as right or left. Thus, it seems like the desire of many on the left to abandon the label has more to do with the horrific re-engineering of the American political landscape during the Obama and Trump eras than anything else. Since that re-engineering is being done by people who mean us harm, and would love to see the left erased, not only from politics, but from the imagination, I am loathe to give them what they want by annihilating the idea of leftism for them.
3)I have never heard a right-wing person say they wanted to abandon the labels left and right. Not even Saagar Enjeti, who is a profoundly disillusioned and alienated right-wing guy, has ever said that he wants to abandon the label "right." He continues to call himself "right" and people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden "left." This bears out my point above--that the reason we all want to abandon the label is that we are tired of being hurt by the people who have made the concept of leftism abhorrent (the Democrats) and by the people who abhorred the left before the concept had been made abhorrent (the Republicans).
4. The assumption that we cannot work with the right unless we abandon the term "left" is a rather rotten one. First, it's unproven, maybe even unlikely. We don't know if there are right-wing people who would work with the left, but Bernie Sanders' campaigns seem to suggest there are. He certainly picked up a lot of working-class right-wing voters--whom Hillary and Joe then promptly drove away again.
There's lots of assumptions inside this assumption, like a Russian nesting doll. Who is this "right" that we must abandon the term "left" for, so that they will be willing to talk with us? (Obviously not the right-wing people who supported Bernie, who regularly called himself a socialist). We're clearly imagining right-wing people who respond to the label "left" with alienation, contempt, or hatred. Why not try to work with the right-wing people who do not so respond?
Let's go further. Suppose we *do* want to work with the right-wing people who respond to the label "left" with hatred, alienation, etc. Are they going to meet us halfway and abandon the term "right?" I find that extremely unlikely, since I've neither met nor heard of any right-wing person who wants to abandon the term. Only left-wing people want to abandon the term--in my experience. That's because, in America, it sucks to be a leftist. It sucks to be a right-wing working-class person too, but that's because they are working class--not because they are right wing.
It seems far more likely that we would find right-wing people willing to work with left-wing people under a rubric of Bernie-style democratic socialist ideas than that we would find right-wing people willing to abandon the term "right" and treat us nicely--if only we would abandon the term "left." The ones without contempt for us will be fine with us. The ones with contempt for us will not abandon that contempt because we abandon the term left--assuming they know that we once did call ourselves "left." Quite the opposite. They'll take it as confirmation that their right-wing ideas were right all along.
I'm guessing that nobody here wants to hide the fact that we were left, or that we hold what used to be called left-wing ideas, but if anybody thinks that hiding those things in an effort to create solidarity is a useful tactic, I can only say I think that is wholly unfounded. In the first case, solidarity can't be based on lies and evasions; in the second, of course they will find out, and then their contempt will, if anything, increase. But I assume that people mean that we won't hide anything, and we'll keep being ourselves, but just not identify as "left."
That will not appease the right-wingers who have so much contempt for leftists that the very word alienates them.
I have a lot more to say, but have to leave for an appointment.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Another problem with labels
is the democrats claiming ideas considered left wing, campaigning and winning on those promised ideas and then bargaining away those same ideas later. When the real lefties call them out on it all of a sudden we're the drug dream radicals who will lose the elections.
Worse, the 2 party system has invaded our lives, from what we wear, watch, listen to and what we think about. Politics is every day all the time about everything. We can't have one opinion. Everything is binary. If you believe this, you must also believe that, and that, and that. Maybe that's part of the " the terminator gene of the intellect",why parse ideas when team red pill and team blue pill have the entire playing field to themselves, no new ideas needed.
This is a kickass comment
Thank you for making it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A thoughtful comment
To address just a couple points:
I am no doubt considered "right-wing" by the standards of most here (to the extent anyone cares or notices...) - having voted for Orange Man *twice*.
That doesn't mean I, or others who might be labelled 'conservative' all think of ourselves as 'right-wing' or even consider the popular conception of what constitutes left or right to be at all useful.
Pressed for a self-identifying label I would lean to classical liberal - in the Jeffersonian/Thomas Paine/Age of Enlightenment sort of tradition. That is philosophically light-years removed from neocon/neolib.
The currently popular version of Left and Right is really a false dichotomy, (perhaps intentionally) confusing and counter-productive.
Making far more sense, since 1971, is this:
from "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen
As for:
Couldn't agree more.
It occurs to me that my response
may have seemed hostile or shitty. I hope it didn't. I really like your comments, QMS, even when we disagree.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The neoconservatives specialize in
Contradictions. I can't think of anything they say or believe that is not contradicted by something else they believe. I don't think they listen to what is coming out of their own mouths, or pens. It is no wonder their adherents/ followers are confused.
Yeah. It sucks for them, too.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Lots of good comments
Agree with a lot of what is being said. I did a personal growth seminar at one point in my career and there were three phrases that I came away with that I find helpful in having a discussion with someone.
One was “would you rather be happy than right?” Right in this context means correct. Continuing to fight just to be right and win the argument has not solved what caused the argument in the first place.
Also “I acknowledge your point of view”. I have not dismissed the person I am in conversation with but it usually closes off this discussion and allows a chance to find a common viewpoint on something.
The last one is similar,”I agree to disagree”. End of the conversation. We can both work toward getting the issues that are important to us addressed in some other manner.
I have to agree that I do not want to abandon left and right for many of the reasons you stated and helps me work to build a framework to discus an issue that we both have some common ground.
Thanks for the continuing works.
Life is what you make it, so make it something worthwhile.
This ain't no dress rehearsal!
Sure thing!
I feel there is definitely a chance to find common ground with working-class white people who just became right because of where they grew up or who their parents were--and who had a, shall we say, far nicer view of capitalism and conservatism than what those things turned out to be. Those are probably the kind of people who showed up to support Bernie. I don't need them to become a leftist, and I'd hope they don't need me to stop being one. Like you said, two people can be different and even disagree and still work together. That's where I'd place my hope for solidarity, anyway.
Thanks for stopping by!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
They are not our friends
The Heritage foundation has more than 10000 right wing activists across US training people to run for school boards.
Abortion rights are being cancelled.
Gerrymandering is running over voting rights.
They do not want to work with us.
Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation
Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook
Well, there's right...and then there's right. Right? :-)
I think there's a lot more variation in what we call "the right" than we think. Not so much the libertarians--scratch their surface for a few seconds and you find a "free market" corporatist (at least that's true most of the time). But more the ordinary working people. Yes, some of them *are* bastards, but far from all of them are.
The people you're talking about in that comment are always bastards. The organizers, the fascists, the fuckers. Those are the employees of the people who are slowly killing us. Not sure you can be part of something like that without being a bastard.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Good afternoon CSTMS. Crazy and hectic for about a
week now. Great analysis and great points. The less said about Friedman, his ideology, and his followers the better. Of course, that is also pretty much the law of the land since the Revlon case and a few others, so what can one say.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Thanks so much for stopping by.
Friedman's idea--which I noticed was put rather ungrammatically--could wipe out complex life on several planets--if we colonized them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver