Sunday, March 24, 2013

1913 and 2013. Different Players, Same Argument.

The fate of America may come down to identifying the actual players.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification. Winston Churchill described Russia as "a riddle, hidden inside an enigma." If the Prime Minister were alive today, he would likely describe contemporary America as "controlled by two bickering cousins who represent less than one-third of the nation's total population."

So...We have two factions fighting. But, in reality, they are "cut from the same cloth." And, they actually represent the will of only one-third of the population? How is this possible? If indeed it is actually true!

"Money. Organization. And, the ability to divide and conquer."

Works very time!

Even though there are many who would argue with the former Prime Minister, it may be worth study! America is controlled by two major political parties. Both position the other as diametrically different. But are they?

As one former CIA Operative coined, "it's like a large university with a red team and a blue team. The same people are controlling everything."

There are some activist groups who go as far as to say, "America is no longer a Republic. It is a corporation."

Let us say, for the sake of the argument, all of this is "poppycock!" We are not a corporation. We are not a red team and a blue team, playing for the same university. We are a "large, diverse democracy." Anyone believing otherwise is an "out in left field reactionary!" Chris Mathews certainly holds to this paradigm.

Conservatives have attempted to find solace in the Republican Party. They are temporarily enthused when they march to the ballot boxes in hope of bringing about relief from perceived injustices and infractions. Sharp rhetoric finds welcoming ears when it comes to describing the outrages of the left leaning opposition. However, when the piper demands payment, there is always a reason for "massaging" and eventually accepting the other guys point of view!

One frequent user of this blog described our Washingtonians as "Democans and Republicrats." There is some credence to this assertion.

Let's wind the clock back momentarily, returning to Ragtime Russia. Most Americans are not interested in their own history, let alone Russian history! But, it merits our attention.

On the eve of the first World War, there was an intense argument taking place in the soon to be in control, Communist Party. At odds were Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, with Vladimir Lenin presiding. Lenin would eventually be the father of the modern Soviet Union. But following the 1917 revolution, things were far from settled internally.

Trotsky wanted to export the revolution world wide. Stalin wanted to build it from within, believing survival and world dominance began with transforming Russia into an industrial powerhouse. There were other differences as well.

The followers of Trotsky assumed that modern man would embrace the Marxist system voluntarily. Stalin concluded that the country lacked the time to allow people to gradually accept Communism. His five-year plans accelerated adoption by force. His methodology was later condemned by top party officials, including Nikita Kruschev.

Followers of Trotsky held Stalin largely in contempt. There were efforts to undermine him, resulting in executions,(in many cases murders), deportations, forced famines and outright terror! Those "Trotskyites" fortunate enough, exited Russia, landing in other parts of Europe, and the Western Hemisphere, including America. Trotsky himself was in Mexico when he assassinated in 1940.

All "Stalinists" did not reside in Russia. An enclave of primarily Jewish Marxists were spawned at the now famous Frankfurt School, in Frankfurt, Germany. With the rise of Adoph Hitler, they departed for the west, ultimately landing in New York City.

In Russia, the two sides were referred to as "Bolsheviks and Mensheviks." The names are derivatives of "Bol and Men;" More and less." The Bolsheviks won because there was more support for their interpretation of Communism. The Mensheviks with less lost, resorting to exile.

Much has been written about Leon Trotsky and his interpretation of Karl Marx's writings. Some suggest that he was the true Socialist, believing as Lenin did, that a Democracy could be the fruit of a system that was properly run. Stalin, was more pragmatic. He concluded that the "workers were not at a point" where they could wisely determine a course. His "dictatorship of the Proletariat" was nothing more than Democracy orchestrated by the Communist Party.

How does this relate to contemporary America?

The Frankfurt School produced many names including Antonio Gramsci who was the mentor for Saul Alinsky. Modern disciples of Alinsky include Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

There is growing evidence that modern "Neo-Conservatives" or "Neo-Cons" are "evolved Trotskyites." But, who are the "Neo-Cons?" And where are they to be found?

Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul made a stark distinction between "Constitutional Conservatives" and "Neo-Conservatives" in his book, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington." According to Senator Paul, "Neo-Cons" advocate a "large, Washington D.C. based central government" with a role "to advance and facilitate conservative principles and policies."

Sounds a bit contradictory! In reality, we can see the teachings of Trotsky manifested in modern U.S. policy. And, to the surprise of many Republicans, they are not necessarily coming from the Democrat Party!

Let us examine two of George W. Bush's gifts: "No Child Left Behind" and "The Department of Homeland Security." Both were well meant, well intended programs designed to better America. And both involved greater control from Washington, D.C. Not to mention the expansion of the central government!

How about Iraq and Afghanistan? Were we not "exporting democracy" to those regions?
Did we not assume that when given a taste of our system, the locals would embrace it? Since both countries were "replacing governments," did this not amount to "exporting a revolution?"

What about British Economist, John Maynard Keynes and his world renowned, "Keynesian theory of economics?" In a nutshell, "tax and spend, deficit spending," etc. And who was one of the players who's theories greatly impacted Lord Keynes? If you guessed Karl Marx, you are correct!

On the other side of the Atlantic, there were some notable figures who were greatly influenced by Keynes, beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt. You can add Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama to the list!

Many committed conservatives find it disquieting that Agenda 21, now commonly referred to as "Sustainability" was initially supported by George H. W. Bush.

Are we suggesting that all of these referenced U.S. Presidents were "evolved Trotskyites?"

Not entirely. But, it is disquieting to note that many of their policies, both foreign and domestic can be traced to the former Menshevik leader.

The Bolsheviks are easier to fathom. They simply want the government to take over, in the name of "Social Justice." When we see anti-second amendment stalwarts Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, speak out in favor of the merits of gun control, we need only to read the memoirs of their mentor, Joseph Stalin to understand their orientation.

The "Mensheviks" are a bit more difficult to pigeonhole. They like to talk about the "clear contrast" between Republican and Democrat visions for the country. That they loathe the other side is clearly evident. Stalin and Trotsky hated each other!

This notwithstanding,were not "Bolsheviks and Mensheviks" in basic agreement on the big picture? True, they represented varied visions of Communism. In some cases,especially methodology, their visions of how to implement Marxism were quite defined. In the end, however, they were opposite extremes of the same ingredient.

100 years later, the argument continues to rage. The names, faces, countries and languages have changed. But the discussion remains the same.

Yet, if both sides represent only one-third of America, what about the remaining two-thirds? It is plainly evident that millions are disgusted with both parties! Two aspects must be remembered.

Following the 2008 Presidential, Senate and Congressional elections, the Republican party was in disarray. An awful election was followed by an explosion of spending and ideas that involved more government intrusion. A grass roots movement that was non-partisan in scope called the "Tea Party" emerged. The midterm elections followed. A recovery for the Republican Party seemed to be unfolding. Then came 2012. Reality returned.

The 100-year-old argument resumed. Important to note, the same entities were backing both candidates, effectively hedging their bets in the event that a slight tremor in the system took place.

Is this the hopeless conclusion for our American fate? Sadly a lot of our people have given up. The thinking is, "who am I to make any waves? It is, what it is. Nothing or nobody can change what has become our country." In essence, "the red team and the blue team" will work something out as always.

There are idealistic dreamers who remind, "it's a good thing that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington didn't see it that way!" They are quick to point out that "we must begin questioning our career politicians, assuming that they don't always act in our best interest."

Above all, "listen for the signals and watch for the signs!"

Does anyone remember Governor Rick Perry referring to Mitt Romney as "Obama lite?"

Did anyone note that when first Newt Gingrich, and then Rick Santorum began gaining ground on Romney in the primary, the coffers of those big Fortune 500 contributors opened up on behalf of Governor Romney?

Why did House Majority leader, Eric Cantor come out so early in his endorsement of Romney? Chris Cristie's early endorsement was payback to Carly Fiorina and understandable. But Cantor's? As memory serves me, Cantor is another "Ivy League scholar." Interesting parallel...

It would appear that "Neo-Con" strength is situated in the Northeast. True, they are nationwide. Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard is Chicago based, to name one. The financial clout in in the east. And money is what determines elections.

There have been outsiders. Ronald Reagan is one who comes to mind. But, that was 34 years ago. The demographics of the country have changed since that time. Some states have ventured down the path of Socialism to the extent that a return is improbable, if not impossible! Momentum is not on the side of reformers!

Only through (a)major legislation that alters the voting practices or (b) a contraction of states effectively allowing constitutional alterations can the United States escape what lurks as a dubious destiny for a land that started with such promise.

Perhaps the scales have been weighed and we have been found wanting?

No comments:

Post a Comment