Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Can We Teach That the Fire Is Hot?
George Orwell said, “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that the fire is hot.” The realist in me would add that this is why the left-wing control of our educational systems, media, and entertainment industry is so catastrophic. The conspiracy theorist in me would add that this is why the left wing places so much emphasis on controlling our educational systems, media, and entertainment industry.
Regardless, socialism seems to be rapidly gaining popularity here in the US, largely among people who seem to have absolutely no idea that the fire is hot. They appear unaware that the 20th century even happened, much less why. I would argue that this represents clear evidence that our educational systems, media, and entertainment industry are in fine shape – from a left-wing perspective, it’s working. Anyway, this brings up a few questions in my mind:
- How is possible for anyone to have a favorable view of socialism after our experiences over the past 150 years?
- How does one attempt to educate someone capable of such remarkable, apparently willful, blindness?
- Why is this happening now? What happened to make socialism so attractive all of a sudden?
- Can Democrats win American elections while being openly socialist?
- Is our Democrat party engaging in smart politics or self-immolation?
I’ll start by giving you my opinions, although I wrote this post because I want yours. My guesses:
- People can view socialism favorably only if they have no idea what it has done in the past. So the left wing is smart to control our educational systems, etc.
- People who chose to believe in socialism must feel some pain from their choices – they must feel the results of socialism themselves – poverty, tyranny, or something. They need to feel the heat of the fire. You cannot explain it to them; they won’t listen. Even first-hand experience doesn’t seem to work much of the time – the truly poor want more promises of security from their leaders and will tend to vote socialist. This is a serious problem.
- I have no idea why socialism is becoming so popular now. Please help.
- Yes – I believe that socialism is popular enough that Democrats can win as Socialists. Really, they have been doing so for decades, and socialism is only becoming more popular.
- I think this is smart politics by Democrats. I hope I’m wrong. About all this.
So what say you? Why is socialism rapidly becoming more popular, what can be done to change people’s minds, and are the Democrats smart to pursue this path?
Thanks for your input.
Published in General
So true. The freedom to pursue happiness does not guarantee it – the left says they can (and they deliever in the short term).
The “skin in the game’ argument is most important. Even if people these days don’t own real property (the original voting requirement), getting the bottom 50% off the income tax rolls means they can screw the upper 50% when it comes to taxes and voting. I’ve heard some arguments that say if you don’t pay any Federal income tax, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote in any Federal election. A very interesting proposition . . .
How old did you say you were?
Counterfactuals are hard. My own opinion is that the press would have successfully suppressed virtually any criticism of Obama – in fact, did exactly that. I think that any attempt to analyze elections that does not focus a lot of attention on the headwind represented by our extraordinarily dishonest press is critically incomplete.
That goes for Trump as well: I think both his inauguration and his low popularity can be attributed in large part to a biased press
Not to sound like a broken record (which probably makes no sense to younger Ricochetti), but people should read How To Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff (published in 1954). It illustrates the point “It’s so easy to lie with statistics.” The book tells you how.
To me, this book is every bit as important for us to read as Rules for Radicals . . .
I don’t know that I did. But I am an extraordinarily fit and virile 57. ;)
In my opinion, they are opposite. Self esteem, as taught today, is the idea that you are special just as you are, you don’t have to prove it, or improve on it, because you were born deserving everything. Ego builds self esteem.
Self confidence is not taught, it is learned. Once you have done what it takes to have the knowledge and experience to do something well, you have confidence. You know that you know how, and that you have done it successfully before and that makes you confident you can do it again. Success builds confidence.
Someone with real self confidence does not need today’s self esteem. They have something far better…
I think what you’re saying, @phenry (and I agree), is that the original meaning of self-esteem has been corrupted by the latest generation and their parents. To me, self-esteem (self-respect) grew out of self-confidence, which grew out of those things you say: success. So I’m not talking about “today’s” self-esteem: I hope/think I’m talking about its original meaning. I guess I’d better watch my language! ;-)
@marcin, you and your friends share similar values, and you all have a deep desire to raise the same kinds of kids–good ones. Do you think, though, that you are typical of all those kids who are catered to and indulged–or is that what I’m exaggerating? (I know you’re not criticizing just me but those who overemphasize the number of kids who are coddled.) Maybe you’re right.
My conversion into rightwing thinking was after living for a year in a socialist country, Egypt.
Free education, but class size was 300, professors were underpaid and became corrupt by ‘tutoring’ students who could afford their services and sometimes virtually selling answers to tests by selling a “workbook” that condensed the course (and contained the answers ).
Free education, and everyone has a degree in engineering, but nothing is being built so no jobs. There is no middle class in Egypt (another feature of socialism) and therefore no small business infrastructure. No concrete companies, no lumber yards, no small business electricians, plumbers, etc.
Free crappy medical services, some private hospitals for rich elites.
Underpaid policemen eager to take small bribes to get by.
Subsidized buses, too crowded to ride without people’s hands in your pockets or worse.
Eating government cookies. Yes, imagine what factory baked DMV cookies would taste like.
I believe this lurch toward socialism is an act of desperation. This was supposed to happen gradually through another 8 years of Democrats in the Presidency appointing left wing judges, etc. There are still many Democrats in office and in prestigious positions who sympathize with socialists but recognize that it’s too soon and are alarmed. They need the energy of this socialist progressive movement but they also need to keep the moderate Democrats from recognizing this radical turn. These legacy Democrats have too much to lose by going full socialist.
Republicans have not been actively pushing back on socialistic trends either. They have been complicit in the incrementalism in many ways. They’ve been able to fly under the radar. With open socialism, they can’t comply.
So I believe it will backfire. I’m glad all this is coming out into the open.
Fascinating thoughts, @franco. I especially agree that Republicans have been complicit and have no idea they are helping this socialist trend.
and 3) Capitalism is just as bad or worse because racism and greed.
So if #3 is true, why not socialism?
Of course, all of these words have lost common currency. Socialism means something entirely different to a Facebooker than to those of us who understand what it really means- or at least know what happens when implemented.
So we have to ask our erstwhile friends on the left, “ do you mean socialism Venezuela or socialism Sweden?”
Then, do you know how to keep your ideas of socialism from devolving into Venezuela or worse?
What limits do you want on taxes? Any? Even if they have some reasonable answer, still ask, how are you going to hold that line when it turns out to not be enough money? Because that’s what happens all the time. Even now in the USA governments – state, local, municipal are insufferable revenue addicts.
Money is power and control. Do you want to give more power and control to the government? Do you trust them to redistribute it wisely? Don’t you think they will use an awful lot of it to grow their departments hire their friends and slack on the job?
Thats another thing I saw in Egypt. There’s no “unemployment” you get a government job if you have a degree. Like here, you can’t be fired, only transferred. Renewing my visa was an all day mission of being shuffled through the bureaucracy only to find the guy who had the authority was out that day. Come back tomorrow.
Here in America we are getting closer and closer to this world. The incrementalism was quite effective.
The private sector was stagnant and shrinking while the government sector grew and grew. That was deliberate.
Nowadays, government jobs are superior in relative terms to most middle class jobs, because of benefits, pensions, days off, vacation time, sick leave etc. plus wage increases each year!
The fact that this President is growing the private sector in this environment is a godsend and it’s stopping socialism.
Agree that counterfactuals are hard. It didn’t help though to have McCain say that we had nothing to fear from Obama. He also didn’t stand by his running mate and reeled her in when she got tough on Obama.
I think the number of kids who have false self-esteem is probably pretty low. If you aren’t mastering subjects or skills, you aren’t going to get very far.
You haven’t been tracking the prison statics, then. Nearly everyone in prison has high self-esteem. I think we’re churning out narcissists at an unprecedented rate.
One of the allures of supporting socialism is that it signals, “I care about the less fortunate,” without actually having to help the less fortunate. Voting money out of someone else’s pocket is a cheap pathway to self-esteem.
It’s fear of poverty that gets me out of bed in the morning.
It’s a sense of responsibility that gets me out of bed in the morning.
Sounds like it’s time to discuss : Does the issue of all zygotes formed from human gametes also necessarily have to be homo sapiens(*) ?
In other words, could we be in the midst of a Cambrian Explosion-like life cycle of evolution ?
For example, I suspect that, even if unmentioned, the resistance to socialism is thought to be because of the existence of troglodytes.
In addition, if one were to draw a Venn diagram of troglodytes and racists, its only congruence would be with people of pallor, but not with any people of color.
It has also been suggested that a new generation has emerged in which the cis-gendered are obsolete.
One could conclude that evolution has produced the New Soviet Man, uh, something.
(*) “Wise Man” in Latin
Those may not be unrelated.
What the young don’t understand is that in a socialist economy/government, the government owns most of the property and the means of production. The financial meltdown meant a lot of ordinary people lost wealth, so they blamed that on capitalism, and voted for Obama, the change agent. All economic systems have downturns. All of them. That is why people starve (really to death) in countries like North Korea, which is socialist.
Obama’s elimination of dealerships was partisian. A large Buick dealership in Saginaw was slated to be eliminated. So happens the owner is Republican. He fought back and is doing fine today. Penske wanted to buy Saturn, but was refused. It was actually a GM bright spot.
The USSR was socialist; one of the first things they did was take away property.
Young people still want things like houses, cars, etc. When you have a house, it is a large asset, whether you are a liberal or conservative, you are a capitalist when you have a net worth. Many have started businesses using their home as collateral. If you cannot own a home, you cannot start a business that way. So you have to have investors, or save money. And investors are ordinary people, and if they are denied property, there won’t be many investors either. It becomes harder to be independent when you do not have the right to private property. The risk and rewards are what capitalism is about, not a guarantee of security. What socialist don’t want to admit, is that they cannot guarantee security either.
Many young people also don’t know that the USSR relied on the black market (capitalism) to sustain their country as long as it went.
I remember being impressed by his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. If THAT guy had become president, so much would have been different.
He said what he needed to say.
Yes. THAT guy was the same guy who hung out with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, who stood alone in defending the right of the accidentally-born to die in a closet, and who really didn’t like America.
As stupid and frustrating as today’s news often is, I vastly prefer today to the Obama years.
True, but most of us knew nothing of that then. Many of us took him at his word that he was reasonable, centrist, and, most important, not hung up on race. It was a good speech and a heckuva good acting job.
Charles Beard’s interpretation of the Constitution is still being read and referred to by young college students. I got into an argument with a young man who firmly believes the founders wrote the constitution as a financial scheme to benefit themselves, and it is still working to benefit the rich.
In my opinion, that’s the kind of argument one shouldn’t waste time having — unless there is an audience present to notice that you are sane and your antagonist is not.
I wish it were so, but the Left owns the social assistance bureaucracy, K-12 and higher education. Bill Maher has taken the mask off: they want an economic downturn. They are out after the electoral college to tip the scales away from the voters you mention to the cities they own. Unless Trump is able to regain control of the borders. There might be a chance then, but he is facing substantial Republican opposition on that, and so far the Dems are keeping party discipline.
What I’m talking about is the confidence young people have or don’t have that they will be able to support themselves and their families. I’m talking about their vision of their future.
One of my complaints with public education is that it is a very negative environment for the kids. I wish more adults would spend a few days in their local public middle and high schools. I think they’d be surprised at the cumulative effect of the depressing messages imparted by the kids’ textbooks and teachers.
I think that is one reason socialism sounds appealing to them. There is very little if any excitement about the future for the country or the world. Between the negative images of the future and the constant harping on how socialism solves poverty (which of course it does not since we know there are at least 54,000 homeless households in socialist England, where in theory there shouldn’t be any homelessness), the kids are very attracted to socialism.
Conservatives need to recognize the role confidence in oneself and in the country plays in how people react to politics. People vote for socialists when they think they or their family or friends are dependent on the government or others.
I was never in my life a socialist, in fact in my youth I went through a hardcore libertarian phase.
Perhaps I’m heartless.