Left versus Right
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
Ronald Reagan
A Time for Choosing
1964
No one should find fault with the sentiments of Ronald Reagan as he expressed them back then. You might find fault with Mr. Reagan but not with what he said.
If you are a political partisan, you may have made the mistake of buying into one or the other of the two nightmare scenarios that the two dominant political parties have created to scare us into one camp or the other. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are the monolithic forces they pretend to be. Neither are they the monolithic forces of evil the other party portrays them to be.
There is a ton of divisive smoke and mirrors in the current American political climate, and you know what is certain to happen if we remain divided.
President Reagan said, “…there is no such thing as left or right.” The implication is that we are focusing our attentions in the wrong direction. We should be focusing on making our country as strong as it can be for now and for the future. America has always been great, and we need to stay that way.
President Reagan said, “There’s only and up or down: [up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order. Or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.” No truer words have ever been spoken. Ultimately our goal is to increase individual freedom within the bounds of morality and the law.
Ultimately our second goal is to avoid totalitarianism at all costs. We cannot let our power be concentrated in the hands of the few. It does not matter to us if the powerful few are on the left or the right side of the spectrum.
We the people must make the laws and obey them. The tin gods in Washington must answer to us. Government should be of laws rather than of men.
“Left” is a weird monosyllable term for Marxist policies, international socialism toward totalitarianism. In Europe “Right” usually means nationalist socialism but in the US it means opposition to socialism. Economic fascism is where private property is permitted but the government dictates what can be done with it. Mark Levin prefers the term “statism” to include both socialism and fascism but this word could be confused with excess power in each of the 50 State governments of the United States. A high school student once used the term “governmentalism” in a civics essay, not bad.
I am grateful for Mr. Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher for slowing our descent into the ant heap, they gave us some breathing room. The Roman historian Sallust said, “Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.” In 1964 President Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in a landslide, the following year the “Great” Society was enacted and since then 2.7 generations of welfare people and 1.8 generations of taxpayers have grown up with increasing government power over society. Reagan, a former New Deal Democrat, saw the trend and acted on it 16 years later. Thanks, Ron.
Ricky:
Is it at all possible that the historical trend towards social safety nets (in the last few decades) is not automatically followed by a downward slide into totalitarianism?
If We the People are once again restored to power, We might freely choose to extend a helpful and guiding hand.
Also, Sallust was absolutely right in the sense that we are not crazy enough to wish that everyone could and would rush off in a zillion different directions. Voluntary Cooperation is the goal we are seeking. We want Just Leaders subject to immediate recall.
By the way, ants are widely considered to be one of the most industrious species.
Win Lose or Draw
WLD:
I think it may be possible for increasing government power to not go all the way. But I wonder, how does it end for We the People when the self-called “Progressives” continue to roll and rack up victories as measured by the amount of political control of society? How much is enough for them? Income tax rates of 100%? Federal wealth taxes? Guaranteed income for all?
“Social safety nets” were private, democratically controlled mutual aid arrangements before they were replaced with forced “redistribution” from taxpayers to a growing population of dependents and bureaucrats.
Maybe models for an equilibrium between totalitarianism and liberty can be found in the current despotic regimes of Russia and China. I would prefer a world with people going in a zillion different directions at their own rates resulting in order and real progress. 241 years ago Adam Smith explained how that works and history proved him right.
For the “Progressives” there is more to loot, bribe and dictate. Forward.
You said, “I think it may be possible for increasing government power to not go all the way.” However, you imply that “self-called ‘Progressives'” are hell bent on destroying America’s most sacred institution–Free Enterprise. You may be mischaracterizing people who self-characterize themselves as Progressive. WinLoseorDraw believes that few (very few) “Progressives” would support a 100% income tax rate nor a guaranteed income for all. WinLoseorDraw believes that most (if not all) Progressives believe in Free Enterprise and another great American institution–Equality. The two values (Free Enterprise and Equality) are not incompatible.
WinLoseorDraw believes that government receives its power from the people. All the people, not just the self-proclaimed Progressives. Therefore, even if some “Progressives” are as short-sighted as you seem to think, we’re going to be okay.
WinLoseorDraw has a Vision of true (Capital D) Democracy. You may call him a dreamer, but he’s not the only one.
Neo-Marxists who call themselves “progressive” are not short sighted, they have a long view and they are winning. The 2016 election was the last dying gasp of the taxpayer class that barely elected a president who does not seem to see the trend toward political domination of all institutions. “We’re going to be okay,” is much like “it can’t happen here.”