Truth be told, there are at least a few billion political views

kw: book reviews, nonfiction, politics, political science, textbooks

In addition to The Politics Book, which I reviewed about two weeks ago, I got Political Science for Dummies, by Marcus A. Stadelmann, PhD. The former book is mainly on the practical side, presenting history and practice. This book is more theoretical, plus broader in scope, because it deals more with international politics, and it is not until the fourth section (Chapters 14-17) that we find an explanation of the development of modern political camps across the spectrum. It is also more "textbook-y", and thus less pleasant to read, but I got through it.

When I took a Civics course in Seventh Grade, we learned this political spectrum, from Left to Right:

Radical – Liberal – Moderate – Conservative – Reactionary

However, other terms, that perhaps belong on different spectra, have showed up and are being bandied about as though people understood them. I suspect most do not. I see terms such as Progressive, Fascist, Authoritarian, and Totalitarian. We also hear much lately about Socialism, a little about Communism, and even less about Capitalism.

From my reading in recent months, and particularly from Chapters 16 and 17, I learned that modern Conservatism (I'll skip the fancy font from here on), in the U.S. at least, is derived from Classical Liberalism; that Pre-FDR Conservatism was a kind of Fascism in disguise; that Progressivism in the time of Teddy Roosevelt was a Moderate-and-rightward stance, which Wilson moved leftward, and FDR moved even further leftward, almost into Radicalism. That shift was carried out primarily in the Democratic Party, which in the early 1800's was so pro-Slavery that the Civil War resulted, and which created Jim Crow America for about 80 years, but then morphed into a super-Liberal party by embracing the Civil Rights Movement (mainly after the murder of Dr. King), jumping in front of that parade as though they'd created it. This movement to the Left had the result that the Republican Party, which was originally Liberal in the Classical Liberal sense, was labeled Conservative. Republicans eventually embraced the label. But from about 1940 to 1970, it was hard to tell who was a Liberal and who was a Conservative, even with a scorecard.

(Side note: A Conservative conserves, keeping what works already, and making change slowly. Environmentalism is at its core a Conservative value, for example. Liberalism is more about freedom than about change, but Liberals are more willing to embrace change, particularly in the direction of more freedom for a greater number. Progressivism as now practiced is for changing everything, discarding the old regardless of its possible value.)

The left-shift of the D party, while the R party largely stayed put, has been called "switching places", but that's only if you accept that the midpoint between the political stance of the R's and the D's has been a straight line through time axis. It was anything but.

Where do Socialism and Capitalism come in? They are not political entities, but economic. When Marx and Engels published their theory of Communism in The Communist Manifesto, more than 170 years ago, they thought a changeover to Communism would be almost automatic. As it turned out, Socialism is so against the grain of human nature that it has to be enforced, and Communism as they envisioned it was rendered moot by welfare programs that modified Capitalism without eliminating it. So Communism changed, primarily under the iron thumb of Joseph Stalin, leading to the modern understanding that Socialism has to be enforced by a strong central government, and such enforcement is Communism. I am reminded of this statement:

If people were perfect, Socialism would work; but if people were perfect, Socialism wouldn't be needed. (No source found)

I do know who said this:

If a man under age thirty is not a Socialist, he has no heart. If a man over forty is still a Socialist, he has no head. —Winston Churchill

Politics and Economics overlap, and feed on one another. Why? I summarize them thus:

• Politics is about the use of power (I like to say, it is about forcing people to do what most people will do anyway)
• Economics is about the allocation of money (more broadly, resources)

Money by itself is useless, unless you have the power to make use of it. Power by itself is useless, if you can't afford to engage it. They need each other.

By taking a step back, we can identify the core tenets of true Liberalism, now called Conservatism in the U.S.:

• Liberty for persons, independent of one's citizenship.
• Minimal government interference in the private affairs of persons.
• Each person is responsible for his or her own decisions and actions. Corollaries:
• If such actions result in damage to another, the government may sanction the offender.
• Persons may request legal remedies for damages against an offender.
• Taxation is kept to the minimum required to carry out governmental functions.

Those last few items indicate that some amount of government is necessary, to prevent anarchy, or the rule (at least locally) by the strongest. How the powers of government are defined and shared with the people are the subject of most political writings. The usual framework is that laid out by Aristotle nearly 2,400 years ago. Without getting into the details here, the usual, and growing, preferred form of government is the Constitutional Republic, in which the Constitution defines the power-sharing arrangement. Long ago I learned this proverb about the difference between Republicanism (representative Democracy) and Communism:

In a Democratic Republic, whatever is not forbidden is allowed. In a Communist Dictatorship, whatever is not mandatory is forbidden.

Look at the four items listed above, ignoring for the moment the two sub-points. More could be added, but these are sufficient to show that modern American Conservatism has taken the mantle of Classical Liberalism, and still holds it.

A conclusion the book's author reaches echoes that of a number of philosophers of politics: while many nations carry on republicanism within their borders, the world as a whole is anarchical, in which the nations, thought of as persons with a great variation in power and control, act selfishly. Although wars for territorial acquisition are now outlawed by (mostly) general agreement (AKA treaties held by the United Nations), other kinds of wars happen. These days war is more likely to occur along ideological lines. Thus, we've been in a slow-burning World War III since the first set of attacks by Muslim extremists against America in the late 1990's. The attacks of 9/11/2001 were their main successful "battle". Don't think Radical Islam has given up. They've been beaten back temporarily. If nothing else works, Islam in general has a program of outbreeding the rest of the world until it can become the new superpower.

Looking inward, I find that, while I have thought of myself as Conservative for decades, I find I am actually a Liberal, in the classical sense. In the U.S. I pass for Conservative, but I suspect my political and economic views are considered Liberal and Capitalist in the rest of the world.

Those being called "Liberal" by the "Conservative" talk show hosts aren't Liberals, not really. They are Totalitarians. Consider the four points above again, with their contrasts:

• Individual Liberty versus Nanny Statism that "protects" people from themselves.
• Minimal governmental interference versus Total government control.
• Personal responsibility versus Universal guilt.
• Minimal taxation versus Income redistribution.

The items on the right are the fundamental tenets of the leaders of today's Democratic Party. That is about as far from Liberalism as you can get. Politically, it is Fascism. Economically, it is Communism.

I have done more ranting than reviewing here. I'm not ashamed of that. The current state of affairs is worth a good rant. This book just gave me the tools to rant more accurately.