Tag Archives: ideology

The Election of 2016: a Potential Catalyst for New American Populism

Leave a reply

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

Looking back on the United States presidential election of 2016, I can theorize about how a political novice like Donald Trump won the election and how his rhetoric resonated with lower-class Americans. Trump used simplistic language in his speeches, providing little details regarding public policy and appealed to an instinctive anger against an economic system that rewards the most ruthless among us while punishing the most empathetic. Empty promises to create more American jobs, disregarding the interconnected nature of the globalized 21st century economy, appeals to low-income and (formally) uneducated voters who care first and foremost about what can be done for them in the short-term. President Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 is a reflection of several institutional failures in America, first and foremost the failure of our educational institutions in their mission to teach critical thinking skills as well as historical contexts for our most pressing political issues.

The blame for our institutional failures lay at both ends of our proverbial political spectrum: the so-called Left-wing and Right-wing. Judging by the corporate media pundits who dominate our television stations and air waves, the Left-wing seems to consist of pathological desires to force more equitable outcomes out of our economic system while disregarding the irony of authoritative measures for supposedly populace outcomes, and the Right-wing seemingly consists of a dogmatic rejection of any populist, Keynesian policy which has proven its effectiveness in every other industrialized nation preferring a rigid alliance with private interests at the expense of public interests.

American news networks have also failed Americans as they have created a political environment in which partisan laborers for one or another of our political duopoly simply shout and demean each other while not actually listening to each other, seemingly incapable of any nuanced critique of each other’s ideas. A lack of nuance in news media can be just as dangerous as government propaganda because it breeds ideological converts rather than thinkers and analysts.

American educational institutions focus on stylistic and superficial job preparation rather than long-term, skills-based career building and philosophical study. Collegiate scholars today seem more concerned with earning the “right” degree for the sake of making a living rather than expanding their understanding of history and the world and earning the confidence to challenge existing power structures. Students of political science in particular seem more concerned with starting a career with the political party of their choice rather than building new paradigms for social organization.

The election of 2016 presented Americans with two negative options: a candidate representing a status quo already failing most Americans and a candidate representing a pseudo-populist reform with late-capitalism pulling the strings – the same old shit or a new brand of shit sprayed with a bottle of CK One cologne.

Whereas half of American voters do not even participate in our elections every four to eight years, I think this corruption-induced apathy presents an opportunity for alternative political candidates and parties. We have already seen an outspoken socialist win and retain a municipal seat in Seattle, Washington, one of the U.S.A.’s major cities. Populists, reformers, liberals, and socialists need to capitalize on this opportunity to subvert the corrupt duopoly of our two largest political parties and build coalitions across the nation, capturing local seats and building local bases of power that actually resonate with Americans. I think President Joe Biden has proved himself to be just as ineffectual as President Trump at manifesting the will of the people. I suggest new leadership is needed in America, leadership that is neither red nor blue.

Advertisement

The Left is no longer liberal and liberals need to stand up.

2 Replies

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

There is a particular ideology in America today, fostered by the Left-wing of the political spectrum, so intent on giving voice to minority populations that it seemingly idolizes victimization while proclaiming their distaste for and their distrust of populations of privilege.  Some proponents of this ideology have even driven it to an extent of advocating for a dismantling of Western political and judicial systems on claims that Western civilization was founded on nothing more than the exploitation of minority populations.  Nevermind that individuals in the West today enjoy a relatively peaceful society as well as longer lifespans compared to other parts of the world, contemporary Leftists focus on negative aspects of human history while dismissing anything positive that has arisen from a cultivation of social norms.  As if humans would be better off without civilization, roaming the wilderness just like any other animal.

Western civilization is not perfect (of course), no civilization is perfect.  Human history is littered with violence because humans have a proclivity towards violence.  However; despite what post-modern ideologues would have you believe, power struggles are not the only thing that drive human actions.  Any (reasonable) scholar of history will recognize that some of the worst atrocities have been committed in pursuit of an utopian ideal.  In other words, some of the worst things ever accomplished were carried out with the best of intentions.  A pragmatic leader governs a society as humans are, not as humans ought to be.

Contemporary Leftists are indeed pushing an idealistic agenda and it seems eerily reminiscent of the old Marxist rhetoric leading up to the Russian Revolution which formed the Soviet Union.  These new “cultural Marxists,” or neo-Marxists, are driven by a desire for a utopia in which no group of people is prejudiced toward another group of people and all individuals live in harmony with one another with no hatred, jealousy, or exploitation.  This is a fantastical, pathological idea and it is most evident on college campuses (more so with large universities) where Leftist, student organizations will rally protests against specific people with a so-called controversial opinion simply for having the audacity to speak to a crowd of supporters.  Leftists students today are so “triggered” by differing opinions that they wish to limit individual freedom of speech to protect their own asinine sensabilities.  The political Left is no longer liberal and liberals must stand up against these neo-communists.

Liberalism is about individuality, liberty, entreprenuership, and the ability of one person to forge his/her own destiny regardless of the circumstances of his birth.  Liberals advocate for free speech for individuals, accountability for governments, separations of power, divisions in the structures of governments, and egalitarianism throughout a population.

The problem with idealistic, utopian ideologies like Marxist socialism/communism or Nazi socialism/fascism, as “well-intentioned” as they may be, they create “in-group” mentalities amongst specific populations which foster exclusiveness in pursuit of inclusiveness.  In pursuit of a so-called inclusive society, the ideologues advocate to silence any rhetoric that goes against their ideology (any rhetoric that they label as hateful).  Nevermind freedom of speech for individuals and the marketplace of ideas, any speech that may be interpreted as “hate speech” will not be tolerated by the contemporary neo-communists.  This pro-censorship stance is antithetical to classic Enlightenment values.  Censorship advocates are not liberal.

Examples of these pathological neo-communists can be seen in video recordings of public speeches by Milo Yiannopolous and Ben Shapiro.  Milo Yiannopolous is a former reporter/editor at “Breitbart News” who organized a tour of college campuses a couple years back during which he spoke to his supporters publicly.  Ben Shapiro is the current editor-in-chief of “The Daily Wire” who occasionally partners with various conservative organizations to speak to his supporters publicly at various American colleges.  Both Yiannopolous and Shapiro have had contact with protesters at their events, people who were protesting them simply because they were speaking publicly.

A reasonable person encounters a public speaker whom they disagree with and perhaps crafts an argument against the speaker, engaging in a debate.  However; the post-modern neo-communists do not believe in values of free speech and debate, they only care about asserting their own influence in the public sphere and obtaining power over our society.  They do this under a belief that truth does not exist and that power dynamics are all that matter in human relations; this belief justifies their own use of power.

Free speech only matters if it applies to every person.  Every person deserves the right to speak his mind regardless of how hateful it may be.  I write this as a person who used to describe himself as a socialist.  I used to describe myself as a socialist because I bought into the idealistic rhetoric of Marxism, “workers of the world unite,” and all that shit.  I did not understand the bitter pathology behind a strive for utopia.

Post-modernist, neo-communism must be stopped before human history repeats itself.  We do not want another Soviet Union to rise to prominence on the global stage.

Free speech is the foundation for civility.

Leave a reply

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

There is a rising ideology in America today, fostered by the political spectrum’s left-wing, that is antithetical to the values that Western Civilization has held dear for centuries.  This ideology is commonly referred to as “Progressivism,” although it is anything but progressive.  It seems to have been born out of a desire to give minority populations a stronger voice in political discourse but it is taken to such an extreme that it idolizes victimization and demonizes any position of privilege.  Some proponents of this ideology have driven it to an extent of advocating for dismantling Western political and judicial institutions on the basis that Western Civilization is founded on exploitations and subversions of alternative cultures.  Never mind that individuals in the West today enjoy a relatively peaceful society as well as longer lifespans and substantial freedom (Freedom House and Economic Intelligence Unit) compared to the rest of the world, many contemporary leftists focus on the negative aspects of Western civilization like institutionalized slavery and its subsequent repercussions, extreme poverty as a byproduct of excessive capitalism, the tendency of unregulated capitalism to move toward monopolies and corporate oligarchies, etc.  These new leftists either fail to recognize or simply ignore the benefits that Western civilization has brought its people like mass production of clothing, development of modern medical practices and medicinal remedies, personal empowerment through entrepreneurship, rising standards of living for all economic classes, etc.  The new leftists see the world through an extremely narrow and simplistic scope of oppressors and the oppressed with no middle ground.

Western civilization is not perfect, of course; no human society is perfect because humans are not perfect.  Human history has no shortage of prejudiced individuals and violent actions.  However; any honest scholar of human history will recognize that some of the worst atrocities have been committed in the pursuit of an utopian ideal.  A pragmatic and humanistic leader will help to govern his society based on how humans are, not how we ought to be.

Contemporary leftists are indeed pushing an idealistic and utopian agenda, one that seems eerily reminiscent of the old Marxist rhetoric which culminated in the Russian Revolution.  These new “cultural Marxists” seem be driven by a desire for a utopia in which prejudice is non-existent and they are more evident on college campuses.  The problem with this utopian ideology, as well-intentioned as it may be, is that it creates an “in-group” mentality among its proponents, which ironically fosters exclusiveness in pursuit of inclusiveness; in pursuit of an all-inclusive society, these neo-Communists fight to silence any rhetoric that may be labelled as hateful.  Never mind freedom of speech/expression for individuals, whatever speech that can be labelled as “hate speech” will not be tolerated by the neo-Communists.  This pro-censorship stance is antithetical to liberalism and an open marketplace of ideas.

Recent examples of these neo-Communists revealed themselves during Milo Yiannopolous‘ tour through American colleges, his “Dangerous Faggot Tour.”  During this multi-stop travelling experience,  Yiannopolous spoke publicly at privately scheduled events on the campuses of various colleges and universities.  Yiannopolous being a provocateur, often saying incendiary and inflammatory things, was met with much resistance in the form of protests.  Although, these protesters did not attempt to debate Yiannopolous intellectually and respectfully, they instead made a show of their opposition to him in attempts to disrupt and shut down his events.  Interruption, disruption, and (ultimately) censorship are the tactics of the neo-Communists because they seem to think that their ideology is above criticism and anyone who dares to question them must be a racist or a sexist or a homophobe and therefore do not deserve to be engaged with intellectually.  This “in-group” mentality is dangerous because it inculcates the people inside this ideology from any reasonable debate; the ideologues foster their beliefs inside an echo chamber and they become self-righteous.  Yiannopolous may say some insensitive things but he still has the political right to free speech and expression.  Debate is the appropriate response to controversy, not censorship.

Conservatives such as Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and Lauren Southern have now taken up the mantle for free speech, but free speech as a political issue should be a basic unifying principle in any civilized society.  The ability to argue with each other without resorting to violent reactions, even if no consensus is reached, is what separates us from more barabaric societies.