Ever since the rollout of the Green New Deal, liberals have been touting their aspirations. When it turned out that their environmental package would cost about a hundred trillion dollars and entirely remake our nation, they backed off of specifics.
So what are their aspirations? What are the ideals they would like to put in operation? These turn out to be just as fuzzy and unattainable as their policy proposals. They too are filled with social changes that if implemented would have disastrous consequences. These may sound good if unexamined, but they fall apart if closely inspected.
Consider the aspirations of Plato. Over two millennia ago, this Greek philosopher promoted the idea of a philosopher king. He argued that someone smarter and nicer than ordinary people should make the important collective decisions. Only then would the welfare of society be protected.
Nowadays it is liberals and socialists who intend to be philosopher kings. As they inform us many, many times, they are smarter and nicer than the rest of us. If we listen to them and follow their advice we will therefore have better results than if we rely upon ourselves.
But how has that worked out? Has there ever been a real philosopher king? Mind you, this ideal has been around for a long time. Somewhere, it must have come to fruition. Except, of course, that it never did. Real leaders are always imperfect. Furthermore, because they are human, they always will be.
Not long ago, leftists behaved as if Barack Obama would be our philosopher king. He would bring hope and change to a nation that had been betrayed by capitalism, nationalism, and hate. Unfortunately, he delivered something else. What we got was a weak economy, increased social divisiveness, and a crippled foreign policy.
Nevertheless, we shouldn’t blame Obama too much, because no human could supply what he promised or what his sycophants expected. So what did they expect? What were their aspirations? In other words, what did they hope for and what did they want changed?
To keep it simple, their primary objectives were social justice and interpersonal cooperation. Capitalism, in contrast, was condemned as fostering inequality and competition. It thus led to people being mean, as opposed to loving.
So let us ask another question. When have people ever been completely equal and totally cooperative? If this has never occurred at any point in human history, could there be a reason? And could that reason be that we humans are inherently unequal and universally competitive?
The writers of the United States constitution thought so. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were convinced that the human tendencies to be competitive and unfair had to be controlled by pitting the selfishness of some against the selfishness of others. This way they would balance each other out such that no one could rise to become an absolute monarch.
Again, if we look at history, these folks turned out to be correct. Our nation has prospered as no other. It increased in wealth and remained a representative republic despite a host of pressures—both internal and external. Although its aspirations were modest, they were fulfilled.
Meanwhile collectivist societies have been brutal. Mao Tse-tung, for instance, promised Chinese peasants that he would provide them complete equality. Once his followers got to Yunnan, however, they discovered that the communist elite lived much better than they did.
Moreover, if they complained, they were shot. They were not even allowed to leave. In the end, Mao probably murdered over a hundred million souls. Need I remind you, these were real people, not statistics. Collectivists like Stalin and Pol Pot did not reach these figures, but it was not for want of trying.
Aspirations are fine, but they have to be attached to reality. They are not automatically worthy of deference. This isn’t something the current crop of Democratic presidential aspirants understands. They assume that if they can dream something, they can make it happen.
The rest of us must be more careful. Words are only words. If they cannot be converted into beneficial realities, they may be entertaining, but they should not be taken seriously. To do so is dangerously juvenile.
So when candidates get on the hustings and laud their aspirations, these ambitions need to be examined. To uncritically assume they will make our lives better is to place our fate in the hands of folks who care more about obtaining power than helping us.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment