Just in time for Halloween – three scary things about the American left

Just before a holiday dedicated to scary things, I thought I’d write down the three things that I think are scary about politics in America these days. They are present on both sides of most questions, but seem to be most prevalent, and in their most scary forms, on the left. I think this is because of the left’s fundamental belief that they can force other people to behave if they just get the right people in power, and the right laws in place. And by “behave” I mean “think and live the way the left currently believes is correct.”

The three scary tendencies:

Gorify their own leaders.

Dehumanize their opponents.

Punish those who do not conform.

If you’re on the left, and you admit that Barak and Hilary have at least some serious flaws, and you truly believe that your opponents are well-intentioned individuals, and you are not pushing policies that require government force to ensure compliance, then the rest of this writing might not apply to you. I think you’re in a minority though. If you’re on the right, and you do any of these, then I wish you’d stop, too.

Glorifying leaders.

Everyone has a desire for admirable leaders. Hopefully we seek out admirable people before elevating them to leadership, but, once we have acknowledged them as leaders, we want to continue to believe they are worthy of our admiration.

Sometimes, though, people go overboard in trying to praise their leaders. Many cultures in history have declared their rulers to be gods (or, their rulers declared themselves gods and the people went along). Some more recent examples are from North Korea, where their supreme leader reportedly bowled a perfect 300 in his first game, had 5 holes-in-one and shot 38 under par in his first round of golf, filled out a perfect NCAA basketball tournament bracket, and invented invisible cell phones.

Sadly, the American left seems to be following a similar path. Obama’s candidacy was celebrated by presenting him in front of faux Greek columns. Obama declared that his candidacy marked the moment when “our planet began to heal.”  Obama declared that he was a better speechwriter than his staff speechwriters, that he knew more about policies that his policy directors, and that he’s a better political director than his political director. Chris Mathews claimed to get a thrill up his leg when hearing Obama speak. Obama’s fans insist that he has been a perfect President, except where blocked by those nasty Republicans, and that Obama and his family have governed the country with unprecedented grace, despite statements like “bring a gun to a knife fight.” Obama takes credit for increase in US oil reserves, despite his unwavering opposition to fracking technology that enabled those increases. And there is never any questioning or opposition from the left. Is he really perfect?

Currently, Hilary is the golden child. Repeating some of the information from the left about her: She is the best prepared person ever to run for president. She is the most ethical candidate ever. She has faced unprecedented opposition in her career, and none of the allegations against her have ever been valid. She had no role in her husband’s scandals and coverups, or maybe she did but it was part of trying to save her marriage. She was a brilliant part-time commodities trader who made $100k against trillion to one odds. She has spent her life fighting for the common person (and built a net worth of many millions of dollars with her only assets being her role in government). She was even too perfect to admit being ill until video evidence showed her being dragged into a van on 9/11. Then, of course, it was just testimony of her superwoman status that she had been able to campaign while so ill.

It’s not scary that the left likes Hilary; it’s scary that they proclaim her perfection, and that no one on the left is at all interested in whether she might possibly be flawed in any way. Contrast that with the ferocious infighting on the right, between the candidate Trump and the Never-Trumpers, or the many who objected to Romney or McCain, or the battles between Republicans in Congress. The US was founded on the notion of a divided government, where different branches of government would work to ensure that no one person acquired too much power. That has been eroding through the fault of both parties. However, it’s hard to actually assert dictatorial powers if the people realize that you might be wrong. The left seems to be intent on presenting its leaders as almost North Korean perfect, and that’s scary.

To those on the left – think about whether you would be willing to publicly acknowledge any significant flaw in your leader. And not “sometimes she disrupts air traffic when she leaps tall buildings in a single bound” or “sometimes other people feel bad when they realize they can’t compare with her brilliance.”

Dehumanizing opponents.

The left has a disturbing tendency to insult, dehumanize, and then punish all who disagree. Someone who agrees with Trump on any point can’t just have a different vision of what is best; they have to be “those people,” “frenzied, narrow minded … ready to go off like a loose canon [sic].” Someone who intends to vote for Trump can’t just be wrong; they have to be a “deplorable.” And it’s not just Trump that brings this name-calling to the fore. Someone who thinks its wrong to abort a female baby because the parents wanted a boy is not someone defending the value of girls but rather part of a “war on women” and must be forced to recant and even to pay for the abortion. Someone who sells cakes to everyone, but doesn’t want to participate in a wedding they think is bad for the people involved, is not just a concerned person, or even an eccentric, but a homophobe who needs to be fined by the government and bullied out of business. People who voted against Obama can’t just be another part of America that the president also needs to serve, but must be “enemies,” who bitterly cling to their guns and religion, and must be “punished.” Speakers whose views don’t conform to current leftist orthodoxy are protested off college campuses, or shouted down when they arrive. Even a leftist professor who thinks that college students should lighten up a little about Halloween costumes has to be accosted on campus and shouted down. Why are there so few attempts to understand how or why others think the way they do? The left used to like to talk about speaking truth to power, but when the left is in power the only truth that can be spoken is that currently approved by the left.

This tendency to dehumanize opponents is particularly scary when viewed in light of history. It’s hard to do evil to your brother, or to your neighbor, or to any fellow human, even if you disagree with their beliefs or actions. Before any great persecution, the group to be persecuted must first be dehumanized. We can’t just object to their beliefs or actions; we must reclassify them as something less than human. The Jews were branded as vermin before the Nazis started exterminating them. Jews today are described as pigs and dogs to justify the Muslim world’s self-proclaimed attempts at genocide. The business owners in Soviet Russia were declared as enemies of the people, preying on the workers, before they were arrested and killed. Everyone with an education in Cambodia was branded an enemy of the people before the killing fields began. I am not claiming that those on the left want to kill those in opposition, but the movement as a whole seems to be insistent on taking the first step. The left doesn’t just disagree with the right; the left dismisses those on the right as evil in their very being, nonpersons who do not deserve to be heard or understood, only eliminated. If your opponents are evil then you don’t have to understand them, or compromise with them; it’s your duty only to destroy them.

To those on the left – think about whether you really see your political opponents as individual humans with the same worth as you. Or are they “those people,” “deplorables,” who you hope will just “disappear?” Do you try to understand how and why they believe the way they do? Or just dismiss them as uneducated, or uninformed, or racist, or some other dehumanizing label?

The need to punish those who do not conform.

Many of the left’s proposals sound appealing. Based on just the headlines, everyone agrees that we’d like our children to be educated, that we’d like fewer criminals to have guns, that we’d like to help women with unplanned pregnancies, that we’d like everyone to be treated fairly by others, that we’d like to help the poor. If the left was pushing their specific programs as voluntary, cooperative efforts, they might get a lot of followers. Or if they were enlisting others for a vigorous debate about how to best achieve those goals, they’d be doing a great service. But that’s not the way the left works in America.

The left’s specific policies, disguised by appealing headlines, are always mandatory. They are always appeals for government action. The specific policies are so brilliant that everyone must be forced to follow along. The right’s belief in better education results in diverse efforts: raising money for private schools, or making personal sacrifices to allow a parent to homeschool the kids, or volunteering at the local public school. But the left believes that better education only comes through their public schools, staffed by their teachers and administrators (union membership mandatory). That disagreement would be fine, except that they turn to government to force everyone to participate. If you disagree with the approach taken by the local private school, you can choose not to donate. But you don’t get the choice with the left’s vision for education, despite its history of failures. You must pay for their program. If their vision is so good, why can’t they convince people to support it without the force of government backing them up?

When the right wants to help the poor, they raise benevolence funds at churches, or run food banks, or start businesses to employ people, or start children’s homes built by volunteer labor, or muster private boats to help people escape floods. When the left wants to help the poor, they set rules for who is entitled to money, then force everyone to pay for their system (including the administrators to run the system). Despite the generational failure of the left’s “War on Poverty,” it’s still mandatory. Even when the right brings volunteers in boats to help, the left wants to assess fees and require licenses. Even when the right creates jobs or runs food banks, the left steps in with laws to make sure that the people who are actually doing something have to do it the way the left says.

It’s like that across the board, too. Disagree with how homosexuals are treated? One approach is to educate people, to talk to your neighbors, to try to find common ground. Or you can force disputes with tiny bakeries or florist shops, and use government to fine and penalize them out of business. Guess which one the left uses?

To those on the left - think of your favorite good policy. Can you envision a way to convince people they want to participate, without requiring government force against those who disagree?

But maybe it'll all be ok?

It’s as though the left thinks the rest of the people can’t be trusted to think for themselves, or to decide how to run their own lives, or even how to live with their own neighbors. I guess if the rest are deplorable in our very being, maybe it’s justified to enslave everyone to the brilliance of the left. Their leaders are perfect, after all.

Hilary knows how to work government. So vote Trump.

I believe we have overlooked the importance of this election on whether we continue our march to tyranny or take a small step back towards liberty.

The two parties have different platforms, and there could be important discussion about those issues. But that’s not what occupies the news, or the social media posts. Those are all about the horse race, and about character flaws, and personal histories. And the inescapable conclusion is that neither Hilary nor Trump can be trusted with the awesome power of the presidency.

Hilary’s only personal asset has been government power and influence, and she’s made a fortune of millions of dollars selling that. She has a long list of scandals, and the recent Wikileaks documents seem to confirm some of the worst accusations. Her supporters seem unable to admit even the slightest flaw in her – they couldn’t even concede she was ill until video evidence made it impossible to deny. However good she may be, I am certain she is not perfect, and those who insist on her perfection lose all credibility.

Trump doesn’t have Hilary’s history of abusing government power, but his business history doesn’t look much more wholesome. He’s made some remarks that, while nothing compared to the rap artists the left celebrates, are still inconsistent with the character we hope for in a president. He was a bully in the Republican primaries, and too often used name calling and boasting to force himself to the fore. I am convinced that he is not the man to “Make America Great.”

Trump is not the man to Make America Great because we are the only ones who can make America great – you, me, our neighbors, coworkers, bosses, employees and customers. However smart Trump and Hilary may be, I am certain that they do not know how to live your life or do your job better than you do. We will be great because we work together, not because someone in Washington forces us to do what they say.

But either Trump or Hilary is likely to become president, and wield the awesome power of the presidency to affect our lives in many ways. And therein lies our problem – not that one of them will have such awesome power, but that we allow anyone to have such awesome power.

It was not always this way. The U.S. government was established with three separate branches, so that each branch might serve as a check on the power of the others. No single person, or single branch, could run roughshod over our liberties. The president couldn’t collect taxes, or imposes rules on our lives, or go to war, unless the Congress agreed.

But that is not where we are. We have fallen victim to an age-old temptation to look for some other person to “fight for us” (a distressingly common political slogan). Congress has too many different people in it to pick just one, so we look to the president. The president is the head of the executive branch, which through Congress’s default and weakness now has administrative agencies that pass their own rules, raise their own revenue, hold their own courts, impose their own sentences, and “investigate” their own failings. The president has awesome power because Congress has abdicated its own.

What does that have to do with the current presidential election? Everything. The new president, Trump or Hilary, will have far more power to restrict our liberty than our system is supposed to allow. Obama’s “stroke of the pen, law of the land” is the rule of a dictator, not the president of a republic. There not much you or I can do to resist. But there is a lot that Congress can do to resist. And which candidate will be more likely to be resisted?

Certainly not Hilary. For all her failures, she has been remarkably successful in getting government to bend to her will. A press that was afraid to even report her illness is not going to oppose her. The Democratic party is expert at closing ranks to support their powerful ones; there will be no resistance from them. Even many Republicans in Congress pride themselves on being able to “work across the aisle to get things done” – things like 18 trillion dollar debts, and continually expanding government and continually shrinking liberty.

What about Trump? He’s already opposed by most of the press, and there is no doubt that the Democrats in Congress will oppose his every move. A good number of Republican Congressmen already oppose him.

I don’t think our choice this year is which candidate is a better person – they each have more than their share of flaws. Our choice is which candidate can be resisted when their corruption and personal deficiencies surface. I know it’s not Hilary – the established powers in the U.S. will continue to side with her to maintain their own power. I’m not sure that Trump will resist the lure of presidential power either, but I am confident that we will have allies resisting his worst moments. So Trump it must be, not because he’s a great man but because at least the folks in Washington will be battling each other instead of battling us.

Does a 19th century Russian aristocrat/anarchist have anything to say today?

A friend of mine recently posted the following quote:

"Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty of the poor." -Peter Kropotkin, 1842-1921.

This statement is ridiculous on its face - wealth springs from production, not from poverty. It seems like a 19^th century Russian anarchist could have nothing to say to us today. I wondered how someone could be so wrong, and did a little research into Kropotkin and his times, and think that his statement actually could be an important warning to us today.

Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) was a Russian activist who advocated anarchism. He was a proponent of a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers. He was before the Russian “communists” who established a dictatorship by force, and who were as far from “voluntary associations between workers” as you can get. He was a prince, from a time in Russia when the aristocracy used their monopoly on force to hold the serfs in virtual slavery, forcing the serfs to work and taking most of the output for themselves.

Those who tilled the soil or worked in factories were not allowed to keep their output; instead, those with power to use force against them took the output. Kropotkin’s quote does not state that critical fact – the poor were more wealthy (or could have been) had those with power not forcibly taken their wealth from them. It was not the wealth of the wealthy that made the poverty of the poor; it was the forcible taking (by the wealthy) that made the poverty of the poor. We can perhaps cut Kropotkin a little slack, since in his time and place the use of force to take another’s output was synonymous with wealth. There was no way for one person to produce great wealth. The only way to acquire great wealth was to use force to take it from many others. So in Kropotkin’s world, those with great wealth could only have great wealth by forcibly taking it from the poor. In that setting, his statement is largely true.

In our time this quote, and others like it, are used by those whose message is “that rich guy over there is causing you to be poor.  Vote for me and we’ll take some of his wealth and give it to you.” The first part of this is nonsense – Apple’s profits from the iPhone do not make you poor; the availability of the iPhone makes you richer. Your boss’s higher salary for knowing how to manage a complex business does not make you poor; his ability to manage the business makes it possible for you to earn a higher salary. The second part is pure evil – an invitation to join in forcible robbery from those who have produced, just because we outnumber them.

So what is causing you to be poor? Ignore for the moment that even the poor in the US today are wealthy beyond anything Kropotkin could imagine. What is causing you to be less wealthy than you desire? What is causing you to have less wealth than the total of what you produce?

It’s the same thing that it was in Kropotkin’s day – those who use force to take your production from you. It’s not Kropotkin’s milkman who voluntary trades his milk for Kropotkin’s grain. It’s not the computer company who voluntarily trades their computer for your time spent fixing cars or fixing teeth. It’s those who use force to take away the wealth you produce.

And who are those people? It’s not the wealthy, at least not the private sector wealthy. Pick your most hated billionaire – Gates, Soros, Trump, whoever. Unless they collude with government, they cannot use force to take away the product of your work. If they do, they will be subject to law. Unlike in Kropotkin’s day, Bill Gates can’t send his cavalry to your house and take away your stuff. George Soros can’t put you in his dungeons if you fail to work in his fields.

But the US government can, and does, use force to take away the product of your work. They will send the cavalry to your house to take away your stuff if you don’t pay all the taxes they say you owe. They will put you in the dungeons if you don't give them their tribute. An important clarification here – to the extent the wealthy use government force to get wealth (favored tax treatment, anticompetitive regulations, government guarantees, etc.), then they are in the party of the government-takers in this discussion and not in the party of the wealth-producers. The dividing line is not based on how much wealth you have; the dividing line is whether you get your wealth from voluntary trades, or get it by forcibly taking it from others.

Kropotkin’s statement is a worthy warning, but not about those who produce or have wealth. It is a warning about those who use force to take away wealth. In the US, that’s the government (and armed robbers). And, just as Kropotkin observed, that power is increasingly used to take wealth. How else can government workers be the highest paid class, have the lowest risk of being fired, the most generous pensions? How else could our rulers amass such fortunes on nothing more than a generous government salary, plus their power over us? Check on the finances of Joe Biden, Harry Reid, or Hilary Clinton. How can someone on a government salary amass such great wealth with nothing to trade but political power?

The US was founded on the notion of limited government, of voluntary associations among people. This notion allowed the greatest creation of wealth, and the greatest improvement in living standards, ever seen. But that notion is steadily eroding, and at an increasing pace. The average American works almost 1/3 of the year just to pay the taxes imposed by our rulers. We increasingly look to the force of government instead of our voluntary relationships with our neighbors. We vote for people who promise to fight for us, but who are they fighting against? Against our neighbors? Against those who work in and manage and own businesses that voluntarily supply the things we want? We don’t need someone to fight against them. We need someone to fight against those who use force to take from us. But in the US, that is only the government.

Hence our great quandary, and possibly the source of our downfall. We vote to trust the power of government to those who want the power of government, and then they use it to take from us. We need to vote to trust the power of government to those who don’t want to use the power of government against us, but those people don’t seem to run for office very often.

Trump and his taxes – misdirection to avoid blame

There’s a lot of talk about Trump and his tax returns, and how much tax he might have paid. Trump says he’s smart if he didn’t pay much in taxes. The Democrats say that he’s a burden on the country if he didn’t pay much in taxes. There are abundant arguments, but I think everyone is missing the most important point.

Necessary disclaimer – I am not a Trump fan, and nothing in this post should be construed as an endorsement of Trump. I am a fan of holding accountable those who would rule us for the mess they have made of our country. I am dismayed when they use even people like Trump to distract from their own failings.

Back to Trump and his taxes. First, let’s set some assumptions. Let’s assume that Trump followed the rules and paid the amount of tax he actually owed. Let’s also assume that he took advantage of all the deductions and credits available to him, like any tax prep software or service guarantees it will do for you. Finally, let’s assume that he paid only a pittance in tax. Does that make you mad? It certainly gives his opponents fits, and triggers lots of insults thrown his way.

But where does the blame lie? Even if you don’t think field goals should be worth 3 points, you still take the points if you make the kick. If you think offsides is a stupid rule in soccer, you still take the free kick when it’s awarded. Playing by the rules, and taking every advantage available under the rules, is part of the game. Which of us would go to our spouse or our friends and say “I did our taxes, and we owe $5,000. I think that’s a little low, though, so I sent in a check for $10,000.” If we’re working on our taxes, and the tax software says “you’re eligible for a deduction that will reduce your tax liability,” we click “accept.” No one pays more than they have to.

There’s nothing wrong with Trump for paying the least amount of taxes the law allows. But there may be something wrong with the law for allowing someone like Trump to pay a small amount in taxes. But where does the blame for that lie? Maybe with Trump, if he lobbied for special tax breaks. But Trump had no direct power to make tax law. Congress and the president make tax law, all 73,954 pages of it (2013, per Wolters Kluwer). Maybe our rulers do it out of their own wisdom, or maybe they do it in deference to influential rich people like Trump. But it’s absolutely in their control, and their responsibility.

The only conclusion, then, if you don’t like the fact that Trump didn’t pay much in taxes, is that you are upset with the president and Congress for enacting tax laws that allow Trump to pay little in taxes. We are in a two part presidential race, though, so we have to assign blame to one party. Which one will it be?

It’s hard to assign blame for continuing existing laws when government is divided (i.e., neither party controls both houses of Congress and the presidency). While one party might really be to blame for a particular deduction or loophole, they can always blame something the other party did. When one party controls Congress and the presidency, though, they can rewrite everything, and the other party can’t do much about it.

In the first two years of Obama’s presidency, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. They had the power to completely rewrite the tax code. The Democrats, and the Democrats alone, could have eliminated every deduction and loophole that Trump used. But they didn’t. They kept our monstrous, incomprehensible tax code, and set the rules of the game that Trump apparently played well. So when they object to the amount of taxes that Trump paid, they really are complaining about their own poor job of designing tax law. You’re supposed to be mad at Trump for playing by the rules, instead of mad at the people who controlled the rules.

Many magic tricks rely on distracting the audience – flashing a shiny coin in your raised right hand while you make the switch in your left hand. Make the audience look at something else so they won’t notice how you’re tricking them. That’s what’s happening to us with Trump’s taxes – the Congress and the president, all of them but especially the Democratic party, have given us tax laws that are breathtaking in their length, complexity, and unfairness. But we don’t focus on the tax code, or on the people responsible for it; instead, we follow their misdirection and focus our anger on Trump.

What if we focused our attention on those who created and controlled the situation? Will we force our government to be of the people again, or have we created a ruling class that we cannot overcome?