RSS
Home
GOP needs to fight Marxists by proxy (like Reagan did)
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
At a certain point, the reality that the vast majority of the American populace are politically ignorant needs to be accepted by non-Marxists the same way it has been by Marxists. Then, non-Marxists need to adapt their political strategy accordingly.
Progressive/socialist/Marxists start with the premise that regular people are incapable of making decisions on how best to spend the money they’ve earned. And, because of this shortfall of the average individual, Marxists like President Obama assert that two things are necessary: A government that can manage average peoples’ labor and resources, and elitists (like Obama himself) to oversee said government.
The Marxists have been successful doing three things. 1) Gathering support from idealists and freeloaders. 2) Convincing people that Marxists are better than the Republican alternative, and 3) Convincing relatively intelligent, middle-class Americans that the government, when controlled by intelligent Marxists (like Obama), can do a better job spending the middle-class’s money than they can.
In order to fight a winning battle, the GOP must first understand the people who support the opposition. So let’s take a look at these people one at a time and attempt to better understand them and why they are voting for Marxists.
Let’s work our way backwards and start with Group #3. This group of people are truly ignorant souls when it comes to politics. These are reasonably intelligent folks, many of them college graduates (in fields other than politics or history), who haven’t taken the time to consider the dangers of an overly intrusive government. The vast majority of folks in this group were born post 1980. They have no concept of the conditions under which Reagan came to power. High unemployment, inflation, government dependence, and the Cold War are, for the most part, foreign concepts to them.
They have never experienced the oppressive weight of Marxism first-hand, or even at a distance for that matter. They have been taught—as a result of public education—that government has been responsible for curing America of its greatest injustices. It was government, under FDR, that brought America out the Depression. It was government that forced civil rights in the south. It was government that gave average Americans an education, provided a safety net for the poor, and made sure burger-flippers made a minimum wage. It was government that provided loans for college, and first homes.
In short, government has been good to them, and they have no reason to fear it. They also have no reason to believe that government isn’t capable of accomplishing anything it wishes. After all, if we can put a man on the moon we can surely stop global warming, feed the hungry, and cure all illnesses. And do it painlessly, without sacrifice. All we need is a leader who is smart enough to do it. (This is similar to the line of thinking that if we just placed smart, talented teachers into a failing school system, our education problems would be cured.) This is where the idealists come into the picture.
The simple fact is that American history books are reluctant to point out the failures and inefficiencies of government, much less the dangers an all-powerful poses to average citizens. Dictatorial governments are either a thing of the past, or something that happens in faraway places. It’s not something with which we Americans need to concern ourselves. We are a democracy, and democracies are incapable of being totalitarian. (Remember, while these folks may be educated, it doesn’t mean they’ve read Plato or Aristotle, or even the Federalist Papers. Mob rule is a concept foreign—or possibly even accepted as legitimate and just—to idealists and freeloaders.) They have been taught that capitalism is responsible for nothing but inequality; that the difference in wealth between a crackhead and the doctor who treats them is an injustice resulting from a free market; an injustice that needs to be remedied by government the same way government remedied all those other injustices I listed earlier.
Idealists think that as long as the majority doesn’t trample the sacred issues of free speech, abortion, civil rights and atheism, anything else goes. Individual liberty and rights don’t exist outside of these issues (as taught by the media and public school system). If the majority decides to take your money, and then deny you medical care on your death bed, that’s fine. If they decide you can’t eat sugar or drink beer, and that you must exercise four times a week, that’s fine. It’s for your own good. If the majority decides you can’t heat your home with wood or coal or natural gas, unless you set your thermostat at 60 degrees in the winter, then that’s okay. We’re creating a better society for everyone, and saving the earth in the process. The majority has spoken. And in a democracy, any issue that falls outside of 1st and 14th Amendments is fair game for the mob.
Freeloaders, believe it or not, are very similar to the idealists (which is why I put them in the same category). Freeloaders look at their individual situation and try to better it by using a mob-controlled government to take money away from a minority (usually labeled ‘the rich’). Freeloaders attempt to vote themselves everything from ‘bridges to nowhere’ to ‘free healthcare’, and they justify it with claims that it is the desire of the majority. Freeloaders also like credits: mortgage credits, college credits, baby credits, car clunker credits, carbon credits. As long as the credits are for something the freeloaders are already doing, or are for something they want to do to make themselves feel better about themselves, then they are for them. They never think about the fact that the credit has to be paid by someone else. They are motivated purely by self-interest, and their lust for credits is a form of freeloading. Because, like it or not, someone has to make up the difference other than the credit-whores themselves.
Group #2 should be the easiest for the GOP to attract away from the Democrats. All they have to do is behave ethically. And if they are going to preach family values, practice them. It’s really that simple. How many scandals have there been, lately? How much corruption?
It’s time for a zero tolerance policy for the GOP when it comes to corruption of any kind. Politicians who behave unethically should receive no party money or resources of any kind, and should be actively challenged during primaries.
Groups #1 and #3 are more problematic for Republicans. Generally, as a matter of principal, Republicans are anti-government and pro-individual. (I know there are exceptions, but we’re talking generally here.) This tends to make Republicans unresponsive to the wants, and perhaps needs, of the public. This default position of simply doing nothing—even if it might be the correct position—can be very dangerous.
Take healthcare as an example.
The employer-based system is broken. Medicare is broken. The malpractice laws are broken. The FDA approval system is broken. International drug patent enforcement is broken. And healthcare is something that doesn’t function well in a free market because people don’t make rational decisions when it comes to many healthcare issues.
So, we have a problem. Yet, where have Republicans been on this issue? Outside of tort reform, they’ve been mostly silent. And when they controlled both Congress and the White House they actually MADE THE PROBLEM WORSE by adding a prescription drug plan to Medicare. They didn’t even attempt to tackle the real issues.
This created a vacuum.
And the fact is average people know one thing: Healthcare is broken. Obama offered a solution. Average people don’t have the time, knowledge, or training to know whether or not Obama’s solution will work. All they know is that he’s going to try and fix it. The idealists think the program will work because Obama is smart (nothing like that bumbling Bush moron). The freeloaders see free doctor visits and prescription drugs that somebody else will have to pay for.
Republicans should have tried to fix healthcare before it came to this.
Republicans should have tried to fix a lot of things.
I can hear the conservatives screaming “But we don’t want the government in our lives. We hate the government.” And while I agree with their sentiment, it’s time conservatives stop burying their heads in the sand and face the fact that the majority of Americans want solutions to their problems—and that they are not afraid to turn to the government to provide solutions if the problems get bad enough.
Which brings me to my Reagan analogy. During the Cold War, Reagan wasn’t content to sit back and simply let the USSR collapse on its own (which it certainly would have eventually). Yet, he also didn’t confront the USSR directly. What Reagan did was fight by proxy. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Reagan funded Afghan rebels. When they tried the same thing in Latin America, Reagan fought them there, too. Over and over again, wherever the USSR tried to expand their influence, Reagan was there beating them back. And eventually, capitalists won here and there until the USSR itself eventually fell…without having dropped a single bomb on Moscow.
This is what the GOP needs to do: Stop fighting over Washington DC and move the fight to individual states. In other words, fight the Democratic Marxists by proxy.
When the Democrats offer a plan—no matter what it is—offer a more attractive state-run plan.
Why? Because states are naturally more conservative, and, they must balance their budgets, which limits socialism. Of course this means Republicans have to ditch the idea that the government is always bad and adopt the idea that state-run programs are better than federal-run programs. I, for one, am willing to do that.
Do you see what I’m getting at here? Instead of saying ‘no government’, offer a solution to a problem using state governments or local governments.
It’s fighting by proxy and it will work. Sure, Vermont and California may have more socialist policies than many of us would like, but at least we’ll have a choice on whether we want to live under a socialist umbrella or not. At least we’ll be able to move to better place without leaving the country altogether.
And one final note on Marxism that may ruffle some feathers. While I may be an outspoken critic of Marxism, I don’t necessarily think Marxism is evil, and in some cases Marxism can work well. There are two limiting factors on successful Marxist governments though 1) Size and 2) Homogeneity. Tiny, indigenous, Native American populations, small Scandinavian countries like Sweden, and religious states like Israel l can all have successful Marxist governments because the vast majority of people share the same values and culture, and, their proximity to the central government is what I would describe as ‘neighborly’, meaning you’re likely to live next door to your ‘Congressmen’ or ‘President’, which in turn makes them less likely to be corrupt and more likely to be responsive to the needs of their citizens.
America is too large and diverse in geography, culture, and values to have said values dictated out of Washington D.C. Policies that work in Vermont, won’t work in Alaska, Florida, or California. While we are all Americans, we don’t all share the same values; not even close. And, we don’t all share the same problems. We need diverse government solutions that fit our values and cultures, not a monotheistic half corporate, half central-government run nightmare that is completely out of touch with the needs of individual communities.
So here is what I want the GOP to do: Pretend Washington D.C. doesn’t exist. Don’t be afraid to promote individual, state-run, government solutions to our problems. And remember, government itself is not bad; bloated, faraway, and over-reaching corrupt government is. And a corrupt government is exactly what we are going to get if we don’t start behaving ethically, attracting the idealists, the freeloaders, and those ignorant of the dangers of big government, into the GOP tent.
