Conflict: Dexter versus Sinister

Conflict: Dexter versus Sinister

The American Right and the American Left are in serious conflict. This conflict is philosophical, moral, and operational. This conflict has a psychopathic intensity, and is therefore potentially destructive to our citizens and to our economy. Each side professes itself to be correct and that the other side is utterly lacking in character and integrity.

Philosophically, the premise for the foundation of the United States of America was that individuals could conduct their own affairs better than any prince, potentate, or priest. To this end, the powers of the federal government were strictly limited by the Constitution. The American experiment has worked exceptionally well, producing the most powerful and most free large nation in history.

The liberal philosophy of Locke, Hume, and Jefferson was developed during the Enlightenment and gave God’s freedom to all people, along with the means to preserve that freedom, as the citizens went about their business. The rule of law was to assure a level working field as honest competition assured the most productive use of assets. This freedom was imperfect as slavery and other social problems remained as cultural artifacts, and slavery persisted so for nearly a century after the Founding. But the ideals of the Founders were established and made manifest during the ensuing years, a work still in progress. The philosophy of the political Right is the classical liberal position, and includes the various freedoms as recorded in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America, most particularly the right to keep and bear arms which is the sole final guarantor of our other freedoms. What the Left calls the “radical Right” follows the values of the Enlightenment as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

The occasion of the Industrial Revolution was a time of ferment, politically, economically, and philosophically. A new philosophy arose about 1850 centered on the person of Karl Marx. Marx’s new philosophy was intended to deal with a changing world and claimed to reject both traditional state power structures and the new industrial power structures of owners and the so-called (by Marx) “capitalists,” though the hallmark of the new industrial structure was more economic competition and less capitalist, as Marx perceived the term. Marx believed that capital was unearned and was stolen from the workers, ignoring the rare talent for invention, entrepreneurship, and organization that marks all material progress, most particularly realized within the American Republic. The “rare talent for invention, entrepreneurship, and organization” is notably lacking in all Leftist states. The Chinese hybrid requires stolen technology to further its aims. Recently in the USA we now routinely ignore the rule of law (“affordable housing,” Government Motors, Solyndra) and then complain that “capitalism,” Marx’s artificial construct, does not work.

Marxist philosophy was nominally by and for the workers, but historically workers have rejected Marxism and the Marxist revolution was seized by activists. There were fierce disagreements (Mensheviks-Bolsheviks, Stalin-Trotsky), among these activists that resulted in additional levels of conflict and unrest. The revolution became the plaything of radicals and became collectivist and absolutist in nature. Marx and the current Left in the USA talk much of “equality,” meaning that everyone is equally subject to the Left’s dictates. Marx’s concept of communism was that history required an evolutionary development from feudalism to industrial capitalism to socialism to communism. There is no evidence in support of this, and intervening events contradict Marx’s ideas. Russia was the last place north of the equator that Marx would have expected to become socialist because in 1918 Russia was feudal. Marxist revolutions were implemented, not by workers, but by lawyers (Lenin, Castro) and warlords (Mao, Kim, Pol Pot). These lawyers and warlords were much worse and much more deadly than the worst princes, potentates, priests, or “capitalists” that Marxism sought to replace.

Marxists, communists, and socialists could not win elections in the USA during the Great Depression, which would seem to be fertile grounds for a philosophy promoting the interests of workers, but Americans were not buying. Marxism has transformed and adapted to become the Left in America, retaining its collectivist and absolutist nature, limited by the American traditions of freedom and individuality. Marxism re-identified itself, stealing the honorable liberal label and the not-so-honorable progressive label in an attempt to disguise its origins. Where Jefferson was a classical liberal, the Progressives are faux liberals with their speech codes and gun control programs.

Every Marxist revolution in history has failed to some degree, usually catastrophically. This is quite inevitable for a philosophy with such shoddy roots and such misapplication in practice. It is a universal observation that Marxist states are operationally inefficient, institutionally corrupt, and terminally incompetent, besides being genocidal. Marxism is a dead-end into oblivion, just at the time that technology is becoming the driving force in development. The Left was quick to grasp that technology could be used to achieve totalitarian aims.

Morally, both Democrats and Republicans accuse the other of the most heinous perfidy. So, operationally, what is it that actually happens? Since the Left and the Right disagree on most points, it is axiomatic that one or the other must be wrong on any of these questions. It is typical of psychopaths that they are defined by pathological lying, among a number of other undesirable characteristics, according to Dr. Robert Hare, the leading world expert on psychopathy.

This is a transcript of “Meet the Press,” May 22, 2005, an interview with Dr. Howard Dean, Democratic Party candidate for president and, at the time, chairman of the Democratic National Committee:

“I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy. I’m not going to be lectured as a Democrat — we’ve got some pretty strong moral values in my party, and maybe we ought to do a better job standing up and fighting for them. Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night. Our moral values say that people who work hard all their lives ought to be able to retire with dignity. Our moral values say that we ought to have a strong, free public education system so that we can level the playing field. Our moral values say that what’s going on in Indian country in this country right now in terms of health care and education is a disgrace, and for the president of the United States to cut back on health-care services all over America is wrong.”

These comments attracted much attention at the time, and were loudly acclaimed by the Left. Contrary to what the good doctor said, no one believes that children should go to bed hungry at night, but what Dr. Dean says is in direct contradiction of the Constitution, which was premised on each individual being sovereign over his own life. The Left attempts to make everyone dependent on the state. That leaves the state playing the role of George III, if not Vladimir Lenin. The Left’s plan for the USA is psychopathic, where a prince, potentate, priest, or commissar makes all decisions for you.

As the result of the Left’s massive intervention in the affairs of state, we have accumulated $17 trillion in debts during the last thirty years, and almost no one is satisfied with the state of the economy or of the nation: the American Republic is going bankrupt, Obamacare is an incipient disaster, the more money we pour into education the worse results we achieve, our foreign policy is subject to world-wide ridicule, and not a single one of Obama’s ambitious programs has worked as advertised. So, who is the pathological liar? Psychopaths will say anything to gain the power they crave, and worry about the results after they have destroyed your economy and your Republic, and your children will pay for it.

2 Comments

  1. General P. Malaise
    Posted October 5, 2013 at 12:29 am | Permalink

    great essay.

    obamacare is part or the seeds of destruction, another is government pre-school / daycare. no one seems to fighting that in any relevant way. it will be pure indoctrination. it will drive a wedge between parents and children. you will have more narcs and pshycos to analyze.

  2. alda harrison
    Posted July 1, 2014 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Indeed!
    The looni left s success is held up and perpetuated by the media

    Some are merely stuypid:but majority are busy with keeping statism and big/bigger gov in power and expaning it!

    They don’t stop to think that the money can run out!or morally what it means to steal from citizens hard eraings and giving it to whom they deem “the people”
    I do believe the vast insannity spending and corruuption of United ,ations is a leading source and main spender of “other people s money”
    Entitled and spoilt is what they have become!useless is most of their “programs”
    Only refugees seem to genuinely benifit and here they get the job done!mainly as its so visible and supported correctly in media
    So media is main Enforcer of misinformation and disinformation!just like soviets!
    The willful blindness of “iberal/progressives”on left is astonishing as they will also lose if all collapses or ends in war
    Only some madmen :psycopaths will win/survive at top of this pyramid

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*