A preemptive apology for not having a silvered-forked tongue that can rely on priors and presumptions of oft repeated phrases and frameworks, for not having the time for extensive revisions, nor for painting with a broader brush than the prompting tweet.
Socialism is a term that is oft abused and which can mean different things to different people. Ironically, in the United States, many people take it to mean what the Soviets wanted it to mean, which was specifically the collective ownership of property, a bit more broadly to incorporate Godlessness, and more inaccurately social mores that run contrary to their particular view of Christianity as it pertains to both religious and secular matters.
The Soviets pushed their definition of Communism being the one true socialism in order to get all other non-Communist socialists on board; today, it’s used to insulate non-Communist socialists from the socialist appellation. Ironically enough, much of the Cultural Marxist thinking including Critical Theory, as well as the frameworks and analyses of Gramsci, are being incorporated into what James Lindsay accurately termed the “Post-American Right”, with which the “New Right”, “Alt-Right”, “Common Good Conservatives”, “PostLiberal”, &c. are, if not concomitant with each other, then a highly overlapping Venn diagram—none of these things being anything other than at some fundamental level socialist.
Socialism, as it was more properly and broadly understood wasn’t about government ownership of just property, but collective and centralized, at some level, control over society both socially as it pertains to non-economic issues and economically as well. This is why the European Union is socialist, as is pretty much every single political party in Europe today; this is also why both Italian Fascism and German National Socialism are also indeed socialism.
Italian Fascism under Mussolini is actually a good example of socialism in a non-Communist vein. They conceived the nation as a whole and the people are parts of the nation, and it is from the collective nation that the individual gains meaning in some form. The Fascist state may not directly own the economy, but it does direct it towards a “Common Good” with individual sectors (e.g. labor, capitol, farms, &c.) organized to keep themselves in line and to coordinate with the other sectors to work for the “Common Good” under the watchful and corrective hand of the collective of people as exercised through an enlightened leadership caste.
The subordination of the individual to the collective where the individual can not subordinate the collective is socialism, especially when the purported collective is self-directing. Such thinking is a rejection of Western Civilization and an assault on the common good and increasingly a hallmark of the Post-American “Right”.
The misdirection of the term “ordered liberty” is but an example. An order, be it broad or narrow, as bounded and limited by tradition, past wisdom, &c. within which liberty may be exercised unfettered, is fundamentally different than and ordering of society to create some outcome deemed “liberty”.
This is very much what modern Leftists embrace, and what many on the purported “Right” have increasingly adopted as well, and for which they sell socialism without saying it’s socialism with a soft sell. This more progressive vein has been creeping within the United States for well over a decade, just as it has well and truly ruined Europe beyond true redemption. Indeed, those who are mocked with the derisive “what have conservatives ever conserved” taunt were the only ones who actually dared to stand up to all that. Reading what the Left says, especially on the theoretical side, as well as understanding why they believe it and the rhetorical tactics and strategy they use to push it, can allow one to these tricks used, and the underlying precepts and premises thereof, regardless of the specific policy goals or superficial shape of society that is moulded just as much as those who desire a different “normalcy” using the same methods… as we shall later see herein.
All this stands in stark contrast with the rich American pageant which is our heritage and our fundamental pillars of what makes America exceptional. The Anglo-sphere has been different for ca a millennium nearly, and while much of the rest of the English speaking peoples have strayed from what America, even today, holds true, it remains separate and distinct. And what are some of those elements? In short, much of them stem from a throwing off of the “Norman Yoke.” Many of the earliest examples of this are the Charter of the Forest and the Magna Carta, both of which made it clear that the government (in this case the not-so-devine right of kings) was limited and the people needed to keep it in check, that is, to place the yoke on the state in order to keep it off the people. In contrast socialists presume a certain unity of the two, at least as a possibility of not outright desirous outcome.
In this vein, the people do not direct society via the government because “the people” is not can can not be a singular will like some Rousseau-esque Volonté Générale or “Common Good” to which the individual can be subsumed. Nor is “society” greater than the sum of the individuals that make it up, but there is nothing that “society” can have that did not come from individuals and the free action therebetween under the law and the social mores that arose independent of, and often antecedent to, government itself.
This is not some false dilemma fallacy of collective decision making and total anarchy. It is the difference between a centralized organization of society under a proscriptive idea or ideology and an organic and self-organizing society with a basis encapsulated by a descriptive illuminating idea of what society already is all under the limited confined of the law be those confines broad or narrow.
Far too often people ignore that later of those two and focus on competing visions of the former, or a competition with their vision of the former with some similar system of a ruler or rulers ruling over others; the irony here being that the “society” directing itself as if it were some fictitious god always devolves from the masses to control by an elite few.
More simply, it is the difference between a proscriptive imposition of an idea or ideology and a descriptive idea of a summary of what was already there; that is, it is the difference between imposing an order on individuals who must give way and maintaining a framework of order within which people can be free.
It is a dead give-away which side a person stands on when they talk about how problems all stem from a “system” of oppression that was imposed, and that the only solution is to break down that “system” of oppression and replace it with one that elevates the oppressed. It is the assumption that there always is a “system” and it is only a matter of political will for the good system to replace the bad. And it always comes along with “noticing” the problem with the often not explicitly said ascribing that to some “system” or nefarious plot. In other words, it is people who wake-up from some “false consciousness” and in this stake of being “woke” understand a “critical consciousness” which somehow inevitably leads to a narrow if not manichean solution for which no opposition may be broached.
Such an aforementioned “soft sell” was attempted by one Terry Schilling. Right out the gate in his tweet he talks about noticing problems and the immediately ascribes them to a system of resultant oppression that presumes an active plan to redistribute the wealth of those who are being oppressed which must be “fixed” to favor a more just outcome. A bit of a fisking is in order, but first to avoid the rhetorical assumptions and traps, an honest conservative proposition must be made.
His framework of thinking is endemic to socialists. Denote a particular system of oppression, “notice” the problem, and then propose replacing it with a non-oppressive/anti-oppressive system to directly fix the “problem”. It is an assumption that conditions are, first and foremost, imposed by the powerful.
Yes, there are problems in America. There always has been, for no country is perfect, but for all our imperfections, we and our American system have been paragons compared to the rest of the world because of our heritage as opined upon above. It is that superior way of doing things that actual conservatives wish to conserve, and which prevents the hypothetical perfect from becoming the enemy of the good. As tempting as it may be to the impatient to take down the “system” in order to replace it with something better, society can not be constructed by (un)intelligent designers. While there is of course much disagreement with the particulars of conservatism, as it is a descriptive ideology rather than some proactive plan of action or political manifesto, there is a commonality for much of it, as imperfectly stated as it may be.
As a country with the rule of law where the rules are elevated above the “rulers”, the scope of government is limited to one degree or another, and rights are inalienable having always existed independent of, and antecedent to, government itself, we must resist the temptation to follow the more socialist path that Europe and the rest of the world has traveled to their detriment.
The problems? Of course there are problems and we not only notice them but want to address those problems. But there are no easy “one neat trick” solutions nor any solution that can just be implemented to fix things. Government can not create a utopia, and the more power it has to impose a solution, the more the actual people will become subject to the inevitably failure of such lofty schemes.
Yes, we are running a massive deficit that is already causing a myriad of problems. The root of this problem is government social spending (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), which is overwhelmingly spent on Americans. It’s politically impossible to institute needed reforms, and there’s no easy fix for this, but adding more programs to “help” people—even the purported “working class”—is the opposite of a solution. Yes, taxes are too high and crippling for most people, but Reagan did more to lower the tax burden and remove “loophole” deductions than anyone once since Calvin Coolidge. Taxes should be low and broad, much like Populist William Jennings Bryan’s mouth, and as flat as possible. Again, people have noticed and provided actual solutions which in reality have been difficult to implement, with many going in the opposite direction for the purpose of helping “working families” via tax credits and the like.
Yes, housing has long been a problem. But home ownership of property is still high be historical standards, so it’s hardly a holistic one. Again, there is no easy fix, but limiting regulations at all levels of government is one possibility. Maintaining access to credit and borrowing is also critical. Zoning reform is also an issue, but again, this is not politically easy unless one defies the people to impose a housing scheme from upon high.
Yes, costs, not just of housing but of goods and services in general, is a problem. Taxes and regulations contribute to this, but the free market is far more adept at serving people needs for mutual benefit than any clever government scheme ever could.
Yes, our poor educational system is a problem, as is the dumbing down of college to the point of meaningless. Also the problem of wokeness and normalization of socialism. But the core problem there is the educational pedagogy. Breaking the often de facto, if not de jure monopoly on accreditation and educational degrees is certainly a good starting point, as is getting the Federal government out of the student loan business, which is the prime cause of the student loan debt problem. But colleges and universities still play a positive and important role. People with degrees still on average still earn more than those who do not. Our community colleges are a marvel of higher education, and our graduate programs in STEM fields are the envy of the world. Any solution to the very real problems of education must avoid wrecking all the good things that we have build up.
Noticing problems does not make one a socialist. Proposing purported solutions that involve imposing a vision of society, even at the expense of individuals, without the limitation of government or it’s power to impose such a vision, does make one a socialist.
Now, with that in mind, on to a little fisking.
“We’re not socialists. You are.”
Right out of the tweeted gate comes the Q.E.D. he will try to construct, complete with questions so begged as invoke bans on panhandling. It is a declaration of being the only “true” conservatives and a presumption of invalidity on others’ parts.
“Anytime someone in the conservative movement says we need to do more to help families and young people, the immediate assumption is that they are calling for socialism. I view this as bad faith—an effort to protect the current corrupted system rather than confront what it has become.”
It is not an assumption, but an informed presumption based on familiarity with the arguments and who makes them. And when you start talking about a nefarious system, he does but confirm that “assumption” to be most likely accurate. Government ought to be conducive towards conditions and government frameworks that allow the possibility of prosperity for all, not just “families and young” people, and certainly not at others expense. Notem also, he immediately drums up a false dilemma fallacy against a strawman all the while engaging in the same thing he accuses his detractors from! It is immediately presumed to be a choice between his “not-socialism” and a “corrupted system”.
“To fix the problem we have to start with basics.
“First, recognize that America is not the pure free-market, capitalist nation we have been told it is.”
Ah yes, there’s that strawman! America isn’t some theoretical anarcho-capitalist system. It does generally have a highly free market, certainly in most ways freer than many of the “Common Good” types would tolerate, despite increasing regulations which are promulgated for the common good. Similarly, this is a similar reversal of the usage of the Soviet definition of “socialist” where they claim that if you support the police or even a purely defensive military that you are a “socialist”.
“Trillions of dollars are taken every year from the working class and redistributed to foreigners at home and abroad, to destructive bureaucrats and programs, and to progressive NGOs that exist for destructive ends—abortion and the sterilization of children under the banner of ‘trans everything.’”
So much to unpack here. One can oppose foreign policy related funding, programs, and bureaucracies. There is plenty of changes to all that which can be quite good, but funding and programs as it pertains to foreign policy and countries can be good for America’s common good as well. His words, though, are also an attempt to set up a false-dilemma fallacy trap of “Americans vs. foreigner” in such a way as to invite someone responding to overly object and thus confirm said false-dilemma fallacy of a zero-sum came where helping one means intentionally harming the other.
We get to more obvious socialist rhetoric and hyperbole, such as the framing of “trillion” of dollars being taken from the “working class” for the sole purpose of funding foreigners. Most Federal taxes comes from the rich and from corporations; scant little of the Federal budget is just handed over in lump sums to generic “foreigners” but rather used as a tool of foreign diplomacy or in ways which are intended to benefit the common good as defined by those in control; it does not mean that how the government spends money is either good or desirable, but only that it isn’t all some nefarious plot to crush the proletariat to benefit the bourgeoisie, as his framing is attempting to imply. . You can disagree with how much is spent on foreign affairs and goals, but such spending it not the root of America’s problems His words are also an attempt to set up a false-dilemma fallacy trap to suggest it is.
Furthermore, socialism may or may not be against things like abortion, and indeed you can have pro-natalist anti-abortion socialists just as readily as you can have anti-natalist pro-abortion socialists; the comparison of Ceaușescu and Mao is proof enough of that. One can be for perfectly spiffy and even desirable ends while being a socialist.
“On top of that, corporations have been handed tax loophole after tax loophole. Tax relief that once belonged to working families has been shifted to trillion-dollar enterprises. The result is that individuals and families not only pay more, they also face the full weight of compliance, penalties, and the threat of jail time for honest mistakes”
Yet more populist dishonesty. “Working families” also get plenty of tax breaks, especially with the highly progressive system America has on the Federal level. A simpler tax system with low and broadly applicable rates with few deductions would eliminate this unfairness, but again, it’s politically unpopular because most people want more spending without having to pay the burden themselves and it’s easier to hike rates on higher earners and corporations.
“Second, we must identify the problems families and young people are actually suffering. Some struggles are necessary and formative—learning to work on a tight budget builds character. Others are not. The median age of a first-time homebuyer should never have climbed past 30. That it now sits at 40 is not a character-building exercise. It is policy failure.”
Not everything is a policy failure. There are plenty of problems caused by government at every level. This isn’t some singular policy failure or something that can just be fixed. The optimal solution is not to try and “fix it” and devise some proactive government scheme to get younger people into home ownership but to reform at all levels and allow the free market to do what it does best. But again, this is difficult without an overly powerful central government paying at being an (un)intelligent designer.
“Third, diagnose the causes. Are taxes too high on productive people? Are government programs inflating the cost of housing, healthcare, and education? Are higher-education subsidies producing more debt and credentials than knowledge?”
Ah yes, the workers and the proletariat produce all the wealth, and then the system takes that away to the benefit of the bourgeoisie! Of course government interference can and almost always does cause some cost increase, but the solution is to limit said interference so that the costs don’t outweigh the benefits people desire from it. Excessive permits and red tape should be pared back, which is primarily at the local level so that the free market can work; government should stop interfering with health insurance or spend Federal dollars on Medicaid even on Americans so that the free market can work; the Federal government should get out of the student loan business and states universities should raise their standards, so the free market can work. But those are hard solutions to swallow for far to many because they want the government to just make things better even if it means interfering with the free market which does a better job than any social designs ever could.
“Fourth, decide what will actually fix it. Sometimes the answer may be an American-inspired program in the tradition of the original GI Bill. More often, the solution will be simpler: stop the bad policies and the spending that created the crisis. Eliminating what is broken frequently does more good than layering on another program.”
First and foremost, there is no “fix” that the government can just provide. Note the logical contradiction in his statement where one on hand he says eliminating the is broken is often better than adding in a new program right after proposing a program like the G.I. Bill. Yes, stopping bad policies and associated spending is the optimal solution, but “[e]liminating what is broken” is a vague conservative-sounding bit of rhetoric that ceases to be conservative when you begin wholesale wrecking everything in order to build a new system without the constraints that has served us so well.
“Fifth, be realistic about what is politically possible. What do the American people actually want? What will they reject? How do we turn workable solutions into a winning coalition capable of saving the American dream from both the DSA and the current plundering by our enemies?”
Again, look at the assumption he’s making. The problem to is from nefarious schemes old and new, and that opposing the strawmen plunderers of the proletariat conflated with actual groups. This is typical critical theory thinking where there’s only a problem because an oppressor came along and oppressed you. And let us avoid the obvious false-dilemma fallacy retort that to dismiss that is to say no one trying to act to their own benefit at the expense of others, for that ain’t even close to being the strawman he presumes and hopes you presume as well.
You are not a socialist for noticing that young people and families are being priced out of the economy in large parts of America. You are not a socialist for wanting to fix these problems. You are closer to a socialist if you defend the present system that redistributes trillions every year to people and institutions that have not earned it.”
He isn’t a socialist for noticing problems which you humble author has already noticed.
He is a socialist for wanting a government that will “fix” it all or blaming a system of oppression that intentionally targets the proletariat to steal the fruits of their labor to give to some elite class of bourgeoisie.
“We have debased the dollar, robbing the saving class while inflating the asset values of the already powerful—further pricing young people and working families out of the economy. We have spent tens of trillions on welfare programs, many of which give families more money on the condition that the father stays out of the picture. We have poured trillions into an education industry that no longer educates. Is there any serious doubt that eighth-graders in the 1950s were better educated than many of today’s students carrying advanced degrees?”
No, inflation is not some nefarious plot by a shadowy elite who controls the government, but of bad policy that the “Common Good” types would more likely exacerbate than treat. No, the trillions spend on welfare programs are primarily on the big Federal programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The types of welfare programs that reward fatherlessness is the result of the government trying to fix the problem of the struggling working class. As imperfect as it is, the education system does, as inferiority as it might be, educate well enough to keep the United States the leader in technology and more prosperous that practically everywhere else in the world. And no, 1950s 8th graders are not better educated than most people with an advanced STEM degree.
“The system is dismantling in front of us. The DSA is simply taking advantage of the destruction their ideology helped enable.”
Again, there he goes with the “system” which must be replaced by whatever damnfool idea the people who grab power try to replace it with, but it the DSA or his intellectual confederates.
“The only remaining question is whether those who still believe in the American experience will rise to the occasion and solve these problems the way earlier generations did—or whether we will let zombie Reaganism, which even Reagan rejected, keep our hands tied and seal our fate.”
The “zombie Reaganism” is another dead give-away as to his socialist bent. It is a vague boogie-man that recycles all the attacks by the socialists and the broader Left. Been there done that.
“I know which side I’m on. Which side are you on?”
I’m on the side that stands up against socialism, the socialist mindset, and the empowerment of government in impose fixes by (un)intelligent designers.
