Socialism in America

by

Gadfly

           President Trump has on numerous occasions asserted that America will never be a socialist nation.  Most visibly prompting these claims are the presence of self-proclaimed socialists in today’s politics:  Bernie Sanders, AOC, and so forth.


           Surveys reveal that the perceived idea of socialism is increasingly popular among Generation Z (age 5 to 25) and Millennials (or Generation Y; age 26 to 40).  Millennials and Generation Z will make up 37% of the electorate going into the 2020 election.  Generation Z prefers socialism to capitalism.


           According to Gallup, 4 out of 10 American voters support socialism in some form.  Yet, even though a slight majority of American voters do not support socialism, according to another recent survey, 77% of registered Democrats do.  Another survey by Pew Research captures the more complex nature of views related to capitalism and socialism.


           So, is America on the brink of becoming a socialist nation?  This is a binary question that implies a yes or no answer.
  

           A more precise question is to what extent is America already a socialist nation?  The answer is:  socialist elements already exist.  For an excellent bibliography of socialism, see Independent Institute’s article, “Best Books on the Folly of Socialism” (please spend some time reviewing the discussion that follows the article).
  

How do we know?  One of the central features of socialism is central planning.

What is central planning and what does it look like?

Central planning is a noble lie (see my article on Noble Lies) concept where elite in a collectivist system organize society for some social goal (with political and economic dimensions).  Here is a quote from the Chapter, “Planning and Democracy,” in F. A. Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom:

The common features of all collectivist systems may be described, in a phrase ever dear to socialists of all schools, as the deliberate organization of the labors of society for a definite social goal. That our present society lacks such “conscious” direction toward a single aim, that its activities are guided by the whims and fancies of irresponsible individuals, has always been one of the main complaints of its socialist critics.

In many ways, this puts the basic issue very clearly.  And it directs us at once to the point where the conflict arises between individual freedom and collectivism.  The various kinds of collectivism, communism, fascism, etc., differ among themselves in the nature of the goal toward which they want to direct the efforts of society.  But they all differ from liberalism and individualism in wanting to organize the whole of society and all its resources for this unitary end and in refusing to recognize autonomous spheres in which the ends of the individuals are supreme.  In short, they are totalitarian in the true sense of this new word which we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call collectivism (p. 100; bold, italics are mine).

           Collectivism is fully manifested in America, where political elite are using the alleged COVID-19 crisis to advance the unitary end of safety.  Unfortunately, far too many Americans have lost their understanding and meaning of the concept of liberty; thus, they have been vulnerable to this very deliberate form of collectivism.  Therefore the socialist political elite assume they can exploit the “whims and fancies of irresponsible individuals."


           A proper understanding of the concept of liberty is the freedom to act as one chooses, provided it does no harm to others and is consistent with the rule of law.  American liberty that has been grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition also involves a sense of personal responsibility for oneself and others, to be a good person, a good son and daughter, a good husband and wife, a good father and mother, a good neighbor, a good employee, a good citizen, and so forth.  This understanding has diminished over the years due mostly to secular humanism and an entitlement mentality.


           As I have previously cited in previous articles, Alexis de Tocqueville predicted these developments in his Democracy in America:

After having thus successfully taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community.  It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.  The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided:  men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting:  such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.  . . .  They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1840, p. 398).

Tyranny in America
          

I have watched with great dismay, this form of tyranny descending upon our nation.  While President Trump has resisted imposing this kind of tyranny at the national level (issuing instead guidelines informed by “the experts”), many state governors have not.

  

Since I am a resident of Colorado, I will use Colorado as an example.  Governor Polis has issued orders to shut down restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, schools, and essentially churches.  Certain facilities could remain open with restrictions, such as grocery stores, food takeout, and so forth.  This week, I learned the Governor will keep schools closed through December.  What is the overall unitary goal?  Public health safety.  With all the closures, hundreds of thousands of Coloradoans are filing for unemployment compensation.  Nationally, we’re now approaching $3 trillion in emergency economic recovering funding—all funded by debt.

What Is the Science?

As a former university professor (with a Ph.D.) and technical think tank analysist, I have been trying to understand the so called science justifying these actions.  It is dubious at best.  I do not trust what is being reported.

First, let’s start with a display that an ordinary person might see if they do a Bing.com search using the search term, “COVID-19 data.”  Here is one of the displays:

           The number of deaths reported:  50,177 for the United States and, in this image, 552 for Colorado.


           Consulting the CDC website, Table 1 below, as of April 23, 2020 reports a total of 23,358 COVID-19 deaths.  This number includes confirmed and presumed COVID-17 deaths (see footnotes below the Table).  The total number of pneumonia deaths is 53,768 (more than double COVID-17 deaths).  Influenza death totals (between the week ending 2/1/2020 to 4/18/2020) are 5,530.  Note the footnote suggests some influenza deaths may include presumed COVID-19.  Earlier in the year, CDC reported 24,000 influenza deaths (before COVID became a player).

           NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.

*Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death.

¹Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1.

²Pneumonia death counts exclude pneumonia deaths involving influenza.

³Influenza death counts include deaths with pneumonia or COVID-19 also listed as a cause of death.

⁴Population is based on 2018 postcensal estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau (9)

           Here is another qualifier regarding COVID-19 cause of death.  CDC issued guidance on determining the underlying cause of death (UCOD) when it relates to COVID-19.  Here is the essence of the guidance:
  

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible.

This is an example of “science” coming from the CDC.  I could find no other similar guidance for other infectious diseases.  So, a lot of the “data” being used for guiding policy decisions is based on guesses (“probable” or “presumed”.

  

Table 2 below shows the number of deaths by age group.  Note that for the groups 65 and older, 18,439 account for the 23,358 total or 79% under COVID-19.  The same group accounts for 43,664 of 53,768 pneumonia deaths, or 81%.  The same group accounts for 3,594 of 5,530 influenza deaths, or 65%.  In terms of the overall population, 23,358 COVID-19 total deaths out of 327,167,434 is .007%.

Table 5 below provides data for each state.  The graphic below is truncated to include Colorado, which shows 348 COVID-19 deaths, 809 pneumonia deaths, and 90 influenza deaths.  These data are different from that being reported on the Graphic above on the Bing.com website (552 COVID-19 deaths).

     

           So, what are we to conclude from the above data presentations?  First, it is far from certain, especially when any of it includes guessing.  Second, the guessing likely suffers from confirmation bias with the rampant fear generated in the public narrative.  Third, most of the “science” that seems to guide the current public policy paradigm comes from technocrats.
  

Technocrats

In his recent book, The Storm before the Calm:  America’s Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond, George Friedman describes the American technocrat:

The idea that emerged from both the New Deal and World War II was that a state managed by experts dedicated to solutions without an ideology would do for the country what it did for the war:  it would breed success.  But of course, this became a principle, the principle became a belief, and the belief became an ideology.  The ideology created a class who felt entitled to govern and who were believed to be suitable to govern.  . . .

The focus of the technocracy was social engineering, restructuring the way in which economic and social institutions worked in order to improve the lives of citizens. (p. 105).

CDC’s Dr. Fauci is a technocrat.  His credibility is beyond reproach by the left.  The left relishes the daily White House press briefing when Dr. Fauci appears to contradict something President Trump has said.  For example, President Trump seemed optimistic about hydroxychloroquine as a possible remedy.  Dr. Fauci argued that it had not been proven through clinical testing.  Thus, he debunked the study published by several French doctors (available here) because it was not set up using the clinical testing paradigm that the CDC considers the gold standard.

  

The French doctors that conducted the study concluded: “Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.”

  

Despite the actual evidence of successful use of hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin in the French study, it was of no value to Dr. Fauci and fellow technocrats. In fact, Google, You Tube, Facebook, and Twitter have warned viewers that the study provides misinformation.

  

Most recently, when President Trump suggested we will get COVID-19 behind us moving into the summer, Dr. Fauci contradicted him by say COVID-19 will be with us going into the fall.  How does he know?  CDC can’t even collect accurate data and he is predicting with certainty that COVID-19 will be with us going into the fall?

  

Predicting or even forecasting is very difficult.  Scientists can’t even predict the weather.  Therefore we see weather forecasts.  Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner wrote about this in their recent book, Super Forecasting.  “In this groundbreaking and accessible book, Tetlock and Gardner show . . . that good forecasting doesn’t require powerful computers or arcane methods. It involves gathering evidence from a variety of sources, thinking probabilistically, working in teams, keeping score, and being willing to admit error and change course.”

           For his part, President Trump appears to have surrounded himself with a variety of sources, has formed teams (task forces), and has adjusted along the way to keep America safe and also economically sound.
  

Unfortunately, President Trump is swimming against ideological currents.

Conditions Ripe for Socialism


           Even before the COVID-19 crisis, there were conditions lending themselves to fulfilling the Cloward-Piven Strategy published in the 1960s. The strategy called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".  Cloward and Piven, Columbia University Professors were self-proclaimed socialists.


           The following graphic from the Manhattan Institute shows the difference in the percentage of mandatory (welfare/entitlement) spending in 1965 (34%) and 2019 (70%):

           Despite the nearly doubling of mandatory spending of a constantly increasing federal budget, poverty levels have remained essentially the same percentage of the population.


           Yet, a more disturbing demographic is the gradual reduction of the labor participation rate.  In the last two decades (2000-2020), the passing of the Affordable Care Act of 2009 had a significant impact on the labor participation rate, when employees lost their jobs due to employer mandates.  The rate hovers at aroung 63%.  See the graphic below (retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics):

           Since state Governors have essentially placed their states in lock down status, over 22 million have filed claims for unemployment compensation.  This number represents 13.5% of the labor force.  How many of these individuals will be able to return to their jobs when lock downs are reversed?  If many do not, the labor participation rate could approach 50%--half of our labor force actually working, the other half on welfare.


           Combine these changes with our medical infrastructure impact (many healthcare professionals not directly associated with COVID-19 have been furloughed), there will be additional ammunition for universal healthcare.  For compelling analysis along these lines (and the large number of deaths due to the ban on elective procedures) see articles by A.J. Kay here and here.


Conclusion


           America is on the verge of becoming a socialist nation.  The COVID-19 crisis is an instrument in the hands of the left to push America across the threshold.  The narrative on this crisis is shaped by technocrats and amplified by leftist politicians and the mainstream media.  Since many, if not most, Americans have lost their understanding of liberty (and the reason a Constitutional Republic was established to protect it), they are vulnerable to the tyrannical, collectivist actions in pursuit of a unitary goal:  safety.  Yet, even safety is a means for achieving the ultimate goal of a single party (collectivist) rule of American society.


           If Democrats keep the House and take the Senate and President Trump wins reelection, he’ll be a four-year lame duck President.  If President Trump loses.  America will cross the socialist threshold.  Many, many Americans will then lament, “We did not know” (a refrain so common among Germans after Hitler gained power and took Germany and the world on a horrific path—see this clip from Judgment at Nuremberg).

.

Noble Lies

by

Gadfly

In his The Road to Serfdom chapter, “The End of Truth,” F. A. Hayek explains how totalitarian leaders create “myth” to justify action.  For example,

The totalitarian leader may be guided merely by an instinctive dislike of the state of things he has found and a desire to create a new hierarchical order which conforms better to his conception of merit; he may merely know that he dislikes Jews who seemed to be so successful in an order which did not provide a satisfactory place for him, and that he loves and admires the tall blond man, the “aristocratic” figure of the novels of his youth. So he will readily embrace theories which seem to provide a rational justification for the prejudices which he shares with many of his fellows (bold italics added for emphasis, p. 173).

Five days before presidential elections in November 2007, Barack Obama announced “We are five days away from fundamentally changing the United States of America.”  He explicitly promised new policies to create a new hierarchical order.  He was explicit about more aggressively taxing the top 1% of income earners in America because there was no satisfactory place for them in his vision of America.

We see now the significant effect narratives (novels or otherwise) have had on our youth when a presumably innocent and still naïve teenager can get an international platform to pontificate about the existential crisis of climate change.  She has an enthusiastic choir that not only spontaneously reacts to and rejects opposing arguments, they want to punish nonbelievers.

  

Complementing this phenomenon are prejudicial theories that have so painfully afflicted so many fellow travelers.  Universities now teach, as if scientific fact, the injustice of privileged versus oppressed classes (see Vanderbilt University handout here and Scripps College presentation here).  As a Christian, traditionally married, father, senior, white male, I am privileged (thus an oppressor) in at least seven ways:  (1) a Christian, (2) a heterosexual, (3) a believer in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, (4) a prolife advocate, (5) who is old, (6) white, and (7) male.  I had no choice in three of these circumstances and a choice in four.  The crime in my choices is that they represent values that are contrary to the progressive left; therefore, not only are they wrong, they are immoral.  Leading progressive University of California-Berkeley Professor George Lakoff argues for such a conclusion in his book, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  But Lakoff goes beyond mere analysis and pseudoscience in advancing his prejudices regarding political values.  He developed a handbook, Thinking Points, to train and guide progressives to in turn shape the masses through manipulative narratives and story-telling.

  

Has it worked?  Absolutely.

  

In Jeffrey Feldman’s book, Framing the Debate, George Lakoff authored the introduction.  Here is what Lakoff said:

For most of the past forty years, conservatives have had a clear field, as progressives did little or nothing to counter the ongoing conservative framing of issues.  That began to turn around in 2004, with the work of the Rockridge Institute and the publication of Don’t Think of an Elephant! and has continued with the publication of Thinking Points, Rockridge’s handbook for progressives.  Progressives throughout America have begun the reframing process and it showed in the 2006 election (p. xii).

What are key implications from this short quote?

1.               The difference between conservatives and progressives (liberals) in the forty year period was the differences in their ideas regarding governance and political values, not in the “framing” of issues.  This difference has been magnified now during the Trump administration and it represents what Professor Victor Davis Hanson describes in a recent eBook, Dueling Populisms.  According to Hanson, “Trump has revived the ancient tension between urban radicals who seek equality and rural conservatives who seek liberty.” 

2.              The Rockridge Institute, a 501c3 claiming to be nonpartisan, was essentially one person—George Lakoff.

3.              The books were both authored by George Lakoff.

4.              In 2006, George W. Bush was in his second term.  When 9-11 took place in his first term, Democrats joined Republicans in supporting Bush’s response.  His approval rating reached 90%.  Recognizing no political capital in supporting a successful Bush agenda, Democrats turned against him and campaigned vigorously through Lakoff-style narratives in the media (the Democrat agenda was arguably focused on pollical power, not what was good for America or the free world).  In 2007, Democrats took command of both houses of Congress and laid the groundwork and sustained their momentum in getting Obama elected President in 2008.

  

More recently, Democrats repeated their “framing” to achieve victory in the House in the 2018 midterm elections.  They did this primarily by falsely telling voters Republicans wanted to take away medical insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions while trying to remove a duly elected Republican president through a concerted false narrative campaign.  Lee Smith’s book, The Plot Against the President, should scare the s*** out of every law-abiding, truth loving American. Of course, as I have previously written, the Communist Party USA took credit for generating 12 million more votes for Democrat House races and 11 million more for Democrat Senate races.

Perhaps the best Lakoff-style framing was most recently demonstrated by Congressman Adam Schiff.  I think most objective observers were not only shocked, but terribly disappointed, by his theatrics during a public hearing on September 25, 2019.  Schiff blatantly and grossly distorted the conversation between President Trump and the newly elected President of Ukraine that took place on July 25, 2019.  In his Committee report, “The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report,” dated December 2019, Schiff proclaimed

Our investigation determined that this telephone call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump’s efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for his personal gain.  Rather, it was a dramatic crescendo within a months-long campaign driven by President Trump in which senior U.S. officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Acting Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Energy, and others were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the President (p. 9).

  

What was the “personal political benefit”?  In Adam Schiff’s words, “dirt on a political opponent” (i.e., Joe Biden).  Nowhere in the telephone transcript is this made known, explicitly or implicitly.  The day before the call, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller had testified before Congress regarding the Mueller Report.  It did not produce any smoking guns for Democrats in their pursuit of “dirt” on President Trump.  After over three years of being under a spotlight for conspiracy theories about collusion and obstruction, President Trump had every right, personally and especially constitutionally, to get to the bottom of the conspiracy against him.

According to Democrats, Biden’s presidential candidacy became a shield against any investigations, even though he is widely known to have bribed the Ukrainian government to the tune of $1 billion to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company that employed his son.  President Trump was denied any such shield during his candidacy, transition, and incumbency.

Lakoff and fellow progressives (i.e., the Democrat Party) strongly believe in “framing” issues.  From their perspective, the masses are not smart enough to weigh the merits of ideas and policy proposals.  This notion shines a light on the real issue:  the nature of governance.  The left believes in rule by men:  governments (i.e., ruling elite or central planners) govern the masses.  The right (i.e., the Republican Party) believes in the rule of law:  we the people establish governments and delegate enumerated powers to protect our inalienable rights.  The sovereign is “we the people.”  Governments are their instrument in protecting institutions (i.e., “rules of the game”) established to protect our God-given rights.

The left’s moral justification for its “framing” of issues takes on the force of a doctrine.  In F. A. Hayek’s chapter, “The End of Truth,” he explained

The need for such official doctrines as an instrument of directing and rallying the efforts of the people has been clearly foreseen by the various theoreticians of the totalitarian system.  Plato’s “noble lies” . . . serve the same purpose as the racial doctrine of the Nazis or the theory of the corporative state of Mussolini.  They are all necessarily based on particular views about facts which are then elaborated into scientific theories in order to justify a preconceived opinion (p. 174).

  

While Hayek’s use of Plato’s “noble lies” gets an important point across about shaping public sentiment, there is a deeper distinction to be made about lies and doctrines.

  

Simon Fraser University Professor Christopher Morrissey teaches philosophy, Greek, and Latin.  At Voegelinview.com, he recently posted an article,  “The Truth About Plato’s ‘Noble Lie’.”  Morrissey explains that the mainstream understanding of the “noble lie” concept is incorrect.  A proper translation of the original Greek text in Plato’s Republic includes “noble” but not “lies.”  Over the years, “lies” has been inferred as the subject.  Morrissey also argues that an understanding of the context is critically important.  As Plato is putting words in Socrates’ mouth, Socrates is attempting to explain that government guardians will use untruths, even lies, in advancing their agendas, and that it would be better to advance doctrine that represents the truth and wisdom of tradition.  In other words, Socrates argued for noble doctrine (based on truth and wisdom, not untruthful framing) in advancing political agendas.  As we know, the government guardians rejected Socrates’ appeal for noble doctrine, and he was put to death.

  

The left wants Americans to believe President Trump is a liar.  They have not ceased their efforts to politically kill him.  According to them (in particular, I think of The New York Times’ David Leonhardt), Trump not only tells lies but countless “ignoble lies.”

  

Aside from the tremendous volume of noise from a concerted effort by the leftist mainstream media, many Americans can appreciate the real signal at play, mostly through President Trump’s Tweets and a small number of credible news sources.

  

Who are we to believe?  What are we to believe?  In my opinion, we should believe the person who advances a populism that reflects the original idea of our Constitutional Republic.  Democrats have cited our Founders a lot lately even though their efforts are contrary to what the Founders intended.  Democrats argue for a populism of urban radicals seeking equality.  President Trump, on behalf of conservative Republicans, speaks for the populism of rural conservatives who seek liberty, which is most consistent with our Founder’s vision for a Constitutional Republic.  Moreover, President Trump champions liberty for all, rural and urban.

  

Believe it or not, like it or not, President Trump speaks noble doctrine.

Acculturation without Context

by

Gadfly

Today’s essay is inspired by a short eBook, The #1 Mistake Most Everyone Makes When Reading the Bible, recommended to me by a close friend and mentor.  That mistake is interpreting passages without the proper context for the passage.  This common practice can also explain how acculturation without context substitutes for a system of education in modern America.  As a consequence, we now have at least three generations of Copernican drones.

 

My very first blog article, “Cogito Ergo Sum (‘I Think, Therefore I Am,’ Descartes),” published on August 9, 2012, introduced the notion of a Copernican drone.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

I realize that many potential readers may be incapable of comprehending the reflection and analysis in these blog entries.  Most of these people are what I call Copernican drones, and some are the product of a public-school educational system that spends more time prescribing what to think instead of how to think.   These Copernican drones lack the functional capacity to pollinate the world with enduring ideas based on their own creative thinking or critical analysis.  Nicolaus Copernicus only published one book in his lifetime—On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres--and it sparked a scientific revolution.  In the introduction to his book, there is a discussion about Copernicus’s reluctance to officially publish his analysis and theory of the solar system.  He knew that it would receive harsh criticism--not from the few who would take the time to digest his work first hand, but from the “drones among bees” who claim to be experts but only repeat what other drones such as themselves have written in newspapers and magazines (in other words, sound bites such as those we hear on the nightly news, or read in newspapers or magazines like the modern era’s Newsweek). 

Unfortunately, today’s Copernican drones are quick to say, “let’s agree to disagree,” either (a) imitating what they have heard from others in similar discussions; or (b) preventing a disruption to their comfort zone.  In their minds, a different view is not simply different but wrong.  Moreover, to a progressive, such as George Lakoff (demonstrated in his book, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservative Think), a different view is not only wrong it is immoral.

   

The Copernican drone effect can be subtle.  For example, we recently watched various news sources on celebrations of the 75^th Anniversary of D-Day.   For some of the sources, the focus was on the incongruity of our current “unfit” President and how out of place he seemed during his European appearances.  Yet, an examination of the most important “optics” would reveal that, at the multiple American cemeteries enshrining hundreds of thousands of American service members buried across the European landscape, their resting places were marked by a Christian Cross or Star of David.  This context should remind us that the devotion and courage of Americans who fought against the tyranny of fascism reflected character firmly rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition.  I do not recall any recognition of this context from any of the news sources.

How is it that such context can be missed in relation to such an epic time in our history?  The answer is acculturation.  Acculturation is how political elite shape and condition those they wish to rule.  Aldous Huxley prophesied a conditioned society in A Brave New World.  C.S. Lewis cautioned us in his book The Abolition of Man.  George Orwell understood the danger of acculturation and warned us in Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Neil Postman provided evidence in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death:  Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.  Bella Dodd wrote about her experiences as an American communist conditioner in her memoir, School of Darkness.  Dodd credits Archbishop Fulton Sheen for her rescue.  In a radio broadcast on January 26, 1947, Sheen said:

Why is it that so few realize the seriousness of our present crisis?  Partly because men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because it involves too much self-accusation, and principally because they have no standards outside of themselves by which to measure their times . . . Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world.  The great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on (cited in an article by Joseph Pronechen, “Did Fulton Sheen Prophesy About These Times?”) .

Acculturation is critical to progressivism.  In this case “progress” is a verb, not a noun.  It involves social justice and other tactics to promote equality, even coercively, in an imagined perfect future—a future created by political elite.  Its idea of the American dream is a future created for others by those who are superior intellectually and morally.  These elite follow in the footsteps of Eve in the Book of Genesis when she defied God by eating fruit from the forbidden tree.  She was deceived by the devil in thinking she could be God’s equal.  The fate of progressivism, as in all former attempts at socialism, is to arrive at a single commandment, as the animals in Orwell’s Animal Farm discovered: “All animals are created equal; some are more equal than others.”  Is it, then, any surprise that some 2020 Presidential contenders extol the merits of socialism while also virtue-signaling about reparations?

Individuality is a threat to progressivism’s acculturated collective system.  This is why equality is more important than liberty.  This is why morality is determined by political elite as opposed to a natural law that is superior to the man-made State.

 

Acculturation without context depends on the imposition of values by political elite.  Tilling the soil of the human mind and heart to be receptive to these imposed values requires the removal of any traditional values that are not congruent with the progressive perfect future.  Hayek made this observation in his book, Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism:

Man is not born wise, rational, and good, but has to be taught to become so.  It is not our intellect that created our morals; rather, human interactions governed by our morals make possible the growth of reason and those capabilities associated with it.  Man became intelligent because there was tradition—that which lies between instinct and reason—for him to learn.  This tradition, in turn, originated not from a capacity rationally to interpret observed facts but from habits of responding (pp. 21-22). 

Lee Harris of the Hoover Institute (and gay) wrote an intriguing article, “The Future of Tradition,” which essentially challenges the rationale for same-sex marriage.  By imposing this nontraditional norm on the majority, political elite have artificially changed tradition, even if it is disruptive to the natural order and stability of a civilized society.  Harris also wrote a compelling article about the roots of anti-Americanism—no surprise in that it has its basis in Marxism.

 

In my opinion, Marxism is the dominant ideology driving modern acculturation in America.  Most Americans are completely unaware.  Many of those who actively affiliate with socialism, such as the Communist Party USA (www.cpusa.org), have little to no understanding of socialism’s history and its brutality—they lack context, and they are Copernican drones.

 

Acculturation is the antithesis of education.  The Latin root for education is the verb “educare,” which means “to draw out.”  To educate or draw out, then, means that an educator (i.e., parent, teacher, minister, coach, etc.) facilitates the cognitive and emotional maturation of an individual, enabling the individual to see and understand and then to explain and to anticipate.

 

Education enables an individual to learn to interact with others and to understand how one’s behavior affects others and vice versa.  Over time these interactions become norms and customs, such as manners.  Manners are what we traditionally understood as habits for constructive interactions with others.

 

Education develops an individual capacity to observe and then to process information for sense making.  This is why two individuals can observe the same thing and have different perspectives about it.  This is good.  It represents the diversity that allows these two individuals to respectfully explore the differences in their perspectives.  Hegel called this dialectical reasoning, which enables closer approximations of the truth, the ultimate objective.  The process requires active dialogue.

 

Thomas Kuhn, in his seminal book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explains the challenge in advancing science (essentially the journey “to know”) is the pesky paradigm—the mental frame for observing and processing information.  According to Kuhn, “When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular.  Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense” (p. 94).  It is possible, through respect and active listening, to be unbounded by paradigms.  This can happen by treating the other person with respect and dignity.  Agreeing to disagree is a retreat from science.

How bad is acculturation without context in America?  On Tuesday, riding Denver’s light rail to Coors Stadium for a Rockies game, a 1970 graduate from West Point and retired medical doctor, sitting across from me, made an interesting comment: “I have not personally read the Mueller Report, but I am damn glad the House is conducting hearings to find out what happened in the Trump Russia Scandal.”

 

Really?

 

Mustering as much politeness as I could at the spur of the moment, I responded, “I have read the report.  Mueller’s logic on obstruction was convoluted and, in my opinion, deliberately crafted in a way to give Democrats an opportunity to prosecute the President in the court of public opinion.  A complicit media provides powerful amplification for this purpose.”  (Note:  according to the latest polls, 50% of Americans believe Trump coordinated with Russia—even after the Mueller report found insufficient evidence for this finding).

 

In the privacy of my mind, I thought, “Here we are casually cruising on public transportation on our way to America’s great pastime, complete with hot dogs and beer, while other Americans are working feverishly to remove a duly elected President.”  This spontaneous encounter was a clear example of a comfort zone and effective acculturation without context.

Germany was an intellectual and cultural center of the world until Hitler gained power with the consent of the people.  In It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis wrote about how fascism emerges in America.  The left loves to suggest that Trump is the main character in It Can’t Happen Here.  After all, he lies.  He’s a dictator.  He’s imperialistic.  Yet, ask for a single example and you hear crickets.

 

Fascism (or communism) can happen in America.  It happens through acculturation without context.

 

Bishop Sheen was prescient in asking, “Why is it that so few realize the seriousness of our present crisis?”  The crisis is not Trump.  Trump is merely the visible symbol of values contrary to the acculturated left.  Unfortunately, the acculturated left controls the public narrative.  The public narrative controls public sentiment.  Public sentiment controls decisions at the ballot box.