There was an interesting soundbite on twitter last week. Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson was opining about how FOX News was nicer to her than the progressive left is. I commented on this on FB and a young liberal felt compelled to snarky comment, as he does with many of my posts. He’s dismissive statement was that conservatives have “a much higher tolerance for magical thinking.” I could only smile at the foolishness, but I believe it reflects the mindset of almost everyone on the left. I think they believe they are the only smart ones with the answers. In their mind everyone else is a fool and should be dismissed, even those who believe as they do if they offer even a hint of disagreement.
I believe what Ms. Williamson has experienced is called public civility, which never dominated our debate of political ideas and ideologies, but the commercial media would at least let both views be explained before engaging in a debate on their merits. Now we see decreasing room for that on the right and almost no tolerance on the left and she is confused the conservatives would be more civil to her than her own progressive movement. That, in my opinion, is what we see in today’s internet-driven world where companies like FB and Alphabet seek to control the flow of information to suit their corporate ideologies, and individuals think they have found some sort of anonymity in fake screen names allowing them to become as base and vile in their comments/opinions with little perceived risk. Fortunately, we are beginning to see where old postings are now coming back to haunt the posters, but how long before the worst offenders are brought to task? But I digress.
I keep coming back to that idea of magical thinking.
So, let’s talk about who has a greater tolerance for “magical thinking” and address the foolishness of my young friend's comment.
Magical Thought #1: If we just created a big enough government to provide everything for everyone then life would become a utopian paradise. Karl Marx identified the evils of capitalism (as it existed in the 19th Century during the industrial revolution), and proposed alternatives to capitalism as a basis to correct the disparity in wealth it was creating.
“If alienation and exploitation are social problems caused by the nature of the capitalist system, then the solution is to abolish that system and replace it with a better one.”[1]
Of course, over the past 100 years, a number of societies have attempted to replace the evils of capitalism with various versions of Marx and Friedrich Engel’s economic theories where socialism would eventually evolve into the ideal communist state. As we look at those experiments they have all seemed to fall short of creating the utopia the two economists envisioned in their theories, yet still they remain as the siren song of those who believe the basic nature of mankind would be changed by a society where there was financial equality for all, despite the individual differences in human ability and desire. The proponents (economists and socialists) long for a time when there is no difference in the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor. In their effort to believe in the utopia of socialism progressives will point to whatever country seems to be working on some aspect of their ideal. For example, just ten years ago Senator Sanders was praising Hugo Chávez as the model for how socialism could make life wonderful for everyone. Today, people are eating scraps in the street, fleeing the country, and protesting the oppression of the government. Health care, if it is available at all, is a benefit of the Cuban regime supporting the government as the state stops imports from the US. You don’t hear Bernie talking too much about Venezuelan socialism these days. He has moved on to Medicare for all as he keeps the magical thinking alive.
Magical Thought #2: If we just pay everyone a guaranteed income we would eliminate poverty and improve the economy.
Along with universal health care (remember “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”) the idea of a guaranteed basic income keeps floating around in the world of progressive economics. The idea is if everyone is guaranteed a living income they would be free to look for jobs without concern about losing their basic income. They were supposed to become more entrepreneurial, develop new products and the economy would take off, and in turn pay the costs of this program. Finland tried it and found that people who lived on welfare, to begin with pretty much acted as they had before the program, unemployment didn’t go down, the beneficiaries didn’t look for work, and the economy didn’t take off. Finally, they had to abandon the program when they could no longer find a way to pay for it.
Magical Thought #3: Gender is a social construct and we should get to choose the gender we prefer to be, whenever we prefer to be it.
This is perhaps my favorite fantasy, especially since it is brought forward by the same people who claim that debating the science of global warming is being a science denier. Within the progressive left, there is an apparently huge desire to be all-inclusive (except for people they don’t like, e.g. conservatives). To support this move they have embraced the social minorities of the LGBTQ communities, and have provided them with months of celebrations, flags, and parades. The politicians seeking out their votes have jumped on board with their pronouncements, one of which is gender is a social construct and we should each get to choose our preferred gender. Clearly, the science which for centuries has identified two genders (male and female) is to be disputed and ignored. Just an afterthought, what does the B in LGBTQ stand for?
Magical Thought #4: If we confiscate all the AR-15 and AK-47 look-alike rifles we will end mass murders.
The Democratic presidential candidates have finally admitted in public when elected they would begin to confiscate all the guns, supposedly to make the U.S. and its children safe. As far as I can tell the only thing it would accomplish is to give the government greater control and set the standard for whatever future freedom they would like to remove. It certainly won’t stop the social violence of people seeking notoriety and their brief flash of fame by killing innocent people. It won’t stop the gang violence that occasionally spills over to other victims, and it won’t alter the fact we are teaching children to fear life because there is a possibility of violence coming into their schools.
What the candidate’s public admission has accomplished is to end the possibility of whatever middle of the road improvements in gun control there might have been when pragmatic politicians sat together to work out potential compromises between the left and the right. Because of their magical thinking, we will continue to kick the can down the road and harden both sides positions.
1 comment:
Is the B maybe for bisexual? But that's so passé.
Post a Comment