The Power Elite

by

Gadfly

       During my Doctor of Philosophy course work, I discovered the writing of C. Wright Mills, a Columbia University sociology professor.  One of his books was The Power Elite, published in 1956.  According to Mills, the "power elite" are those that occupy the dominant positions in the dominant institutions--military, economic and political.  Their decisions have enormous consequences, nationally and globally (this explains why we hear about globalists—Obama, Clinton, Soros, etc. in the public narrative).  The evolving institutions (e.g., succeeding weaker predecessors), which they head are a triumvirate of groups -- two or three hundred giant corporations, a strong federal political order that "now enters into each and every cranny of the social structure," and the military establishment.

Importantly, Mills explains that the elite themselves may not see their elite status, "often they are uncertain about their roles" and "without conscious effort, they absorb the aspiration to be ... The Onecide" (e.g., on the right side of ideology; thus, they tend to be intolerant of other views and values).  Mills sees them as a quasi-hereditary caste, often entering into positions of societal prominence through educations obtained at eastern establishment universities like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, and to a certain extent the older Service Academies of West Point and Annapolis (examine the resumes or biographies of Cabinet officials, the judiciary, and Congress; you will find Mills’ assessment is on target).  In this manner, the mantle of the elite generally passes through families.

According to Mills, the resulting elites can be generally grouped into one of six types (quoted from Wikipedia):

·        the "Metropolitan 400": members of historically notable local families in the principal American cities, generally represented on the Social Register

·        "Celebrities": prominent entertainers and media personalities

·        the "Chief Executives": presidents and CEOs of the most important companies within each industrial sector

·        the "Corporate Rich": major landowners and corporate shareholders

·        the "Warlords": senior military officers, most importantly the Joint Chiefs of Staff

·        the "Political Directorate": "fifty-odd men of the executive branch" of the U.S. federal government, including the senior leadership in the Executive Office of the President, sometimes variously drawn from elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties but usually professional government bureaucrats

       One of the motivations for Mills’ book, The Power Elite,  was Franz Leopold Neumann's book Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942.  Neumann explained how a democratic state like Germany provided the conditions for Nazism.  Mills claimed that Behemoth had given him the "tools to grasp and analyze the entire total structure and as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalist democracy."  This should explain why America is in turmoil today—the left’s push for democracy has provided similar conditions for the chaos and turmoil preceding socialism (and the violent tension between the communists and fascists) in Germany.

       The Power Elite received significant criticism, not surprisingly from members of the various “power elite” institutions.   Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. said, "I look forward to the time when Mr. Mills hands back his prophet's robes and settles down to being a sociologist again,” cited in a New York Times essay, “The Deciders,” by John H. Summers, May 14, 2006.

 

Summers went on to say:

The historical value of "The Power Elite" seems assured. It was the first book to offer a serious model of power that accounted for the secretive agencies of national security. . . ..

Much of "The Power Elite" was a tough-talking polemic against the "romantic pluralism" embedded in the prevailing theory of American politics. The separation of powers in the Constitution, the story went, repelled the natural tendency of power to concentrate, while political parties and voluntary societies organized the clash of interests, laying the people's representatives open to the influence of public opinion. This "theory of balance" still applied to the "middle levels of power," Mills wrote. But the society it envisioned had been eclipsed.

The two key points in Summers’ analysis relate to national security institutions and “romantic pluralism.”  Already in the 1950s, Mills saw the corruption taking place in the national security institutions of America:  The National Security Council, the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and so forth.  This corruption grew to the point that we now face a crisis in which the national security regime attempted to remove a duly elected President of the United States.  Comey, Clapper, Brennan, the generals and admirals singled out below, and a host of other members of the power elite, spied on Trump and his coterie, deceitfully pursued prosecutions, impeached the President for a fabricated crime, distorted Trump’s response to the COVID-19, induced fear in the public to shut down a booming economy, and now demonstrate the same Behemoth tactics spawned by the George Floyd folklore that are creating the necessary conditions for socialism, as in fascist Germany and a communist Russia.

 

There are credible reports (Note this link has since been removed by YouTube) that a Floyd-type incident was the basis for planning the type of rioting that took place in Minneapolis (and in other Democrat-controlled metropolitan areas).  Floyd was just a pawn in their strategic effort to “fundamentally transform America.”  Obama and his Organizing for Action enterprise play a critical role in this effort.  They have teamed up with Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Communist Party USA.

Mills’ treatment of “romantic pluralism” is what the left calls diversity and multiculturalism.  The original understanding of American pluralism was an appreciation and tolerance for different views and values that joined in a common purpose as American citizens.  Academic institutions at the time, such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale were primarily focused on preparing Americans as religious clergymen and public servants.  Today, those same institutions have evolved (“succeeded weaker predecessors”) into secular humanistic elite production centers.  Their emphasis on diversity and multiculturism have nothing to do with uniting America—just the opposite.  So to hide this ideological push, the left accuses President Trump of dividing the nation.

  

When I first read The Power Elite, I rejected Mills’ arguments that included the military as one of the three “power elite” institutions.  After all, as a Service Academy graduate (the USAF Academy), I had ascended to the rank of a senior officer in this institution and considered myself a true public servant.  I still do in my role as a private citizen, patriotic to the flag, our republic, and one nation under God.  I pity those who do not.  Based on cowardly performance of National Football League celebrities who surrendered to the politically correct narrative, I may not be watching the NFL for a while.

       So, when I now read about retired generals and admirals speaking contemptuously about the President of the United States, I see why Mills wrote what he did.  Here are recent examples: generals (Mattis, see here and here; Kelly, see here, here, and here; Allen, see here and here; Powell, here, and here; and Honoré, see here) and admirals (Mullen, see here; and McRaven, see here).  There are others as well.  Do they not see what a dangerous example they set for other members of the armed forces?  One of the Articles of the UCMJ prohibits contemptuous language such as theirs.  If they gave up their military pension and rank, reverting to a private citizen, then perhaps their sacrifice would justify their impulse—but then they would have no credibility.  To use their rank to justify their credibility and message is a gross ethical violation, and potentially a criminal action (see Victor Davis Hansen’s recent article here).  Shame on them.

       These generals and admirals rebuke a duly elected President with assertions backed by no facts.  They also demonstrate their own lack of understanding of what America’s Constitutional Republic is all about.  For example, William Cummings in a USA Today article states:  “Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says that he will once again not vote for Donald Trump, calling the president's approach to politics ‘dangerous for our democracy’ and asserting that Trump has ‘drifted away" from the Constitution.’”

 

A properly educated American would know that our Framers feared the extremism of democracy and the extremism of autocracy (see Federalist Papers 10, 14, 26, and 63).  A republic was the “golden mean” between the extremes of autocracy and democracy.  This understanding helped make America the most unified, peaceful, and prosperous nation in the history of the world, at least until the Progressive Era when Americans drifted from the history of our founding and the power elite pushed for democracy.

 

In Powell’s defense, Americans are no longer being taught these distinctions because the left controls education (as mandated by Marx and Engels in their 1848 Communist Manifesto), and they push for democracy while celebrating diversity, multiculturalism, and new norms that violate the Judeo-Christian tradition; all of which divide our nation.  They believe the majority rules, even if it is only perceived thanks to the media’s amplification of a minority voice (as in the very public protesting and rioting we keep watching on the news).  This is the fruit of democracy:  mobocracy.

       The danger at this critical point in our history is that polling and voting tend to follow public sentiment.  Public sentiment is shaped by the media, Hollywood, and academia.  All are far left of center.

       For over three and a half years, President Trump has been viciously attacked by the left.  His political agenda is consistent with the fundamental concept of a republic, which is intended to constrain autocratic and democratic impulses and passions.  His agenda is a threat to the left’s design to fundamentally transform America.

Soviet, Chinese, and American communists have been hard at work to influence the ideological leanings of America’s media, Hollywood, and academia.  While there is a growing body of literature to confirm this assertion, this interview by Soviet KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, provides an explanation about who is behind the George Floyd riots.  The left is working overtime to produce Soviet- and Chinese-style propaganda such as this recent article by Adam Serwer in The Atlantic Magazine.  Despite outright falsehoods, Serwer somehow believes it is expected not to be nice (more so hateful) to people who are not part of your ideology.

       An Italian Archbishop, Carlo Maria Viganò, who has courageously addressed corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, understands President Trump’s motivations, agenda, and dilemma.  He calls out a fellow American Archbishop, who criticized President Trump for his visit to and photo op at the National Shrine of Saint John Paul II.  Viganò reminded the Archbishop and other clergymen and citizens that we are experiencing a battle between the children of light and children of darkness.  See his recent letter to the President here.  Bravo for his courageous letter.

       The generals and admirals were trained to fight enemies of our Constitutional Republic and American way of life.  Yet, they align themselves with the children of darkness who strive to destroy the American way of life.  Archbishop Viganò clearly sees this and knows the children of light have truth and prayer for their weapons.  

       The generals and admirals likely were honorable men at earlier times in their lives.  Perhaps there is hope for a return to those times.  As Mills pondered, “elite themselves may not see their elite status, ‘often they are uncertain about their roles’ and ‘without conscious effort, they absorb the aspiration to be ... The Onecide.’” Until then, shame on them.

Being Played

by

Gadfly

           The Mayor of Minneapolis has asked President Trump for $55 million to cover property damage following George Floyd protests.  Peaceful protests do not cause damage.  Rioting does.  Does the Mayor own any responsibility for promoting or allowing the conditions that enabled or accommodated the harmful rioting?  Is there a political benefit?  I noticed the mayor is a Democrat.

           And then I noticed a pattern of rioting taking place across our Nation—all in Democrat-controlled jurisdictions.  Is there a political benefit?

           The answer is yes.  It controls the narrative and forces the rest of the population to be played by a deliberate agenda.  So far it has had visible effect.

 

We already see police officers and protestors hugging and white people kneeling (see here and here).  I even received a lengthy email from Uber CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, arguing for “a conversation” and signing off with the statement, “Lastly, let me speak clearly and unequivocally: Black Lives Matter.”

Here’s how CBS contributes to “the conversation,” claiming all white Americans are racist and have contempt for black life.

The mainstream media has fully demonstrated that it is complicit in advancing the Democrat’s political agenda.  Laura Ingraham on Fox News caught them distorting what President Trump said about George Floyd.  Claiming a copyright complaint, Twitter even censored a speech given by President Trump calling for unity.  You can see the speech here.  To the left, President Trump in a liar and a divider.  So, it is alright for the media to lie about what the President actually says and to keep the public from hearing his speeches to unify.

Even Praetorian Guard Flag Officers such as Mattis, Allen, Kelly, McRaven, and others are willing to publicly (perhaps naively) align with a political agenda that is coercively socialistic.

Anecdotal versus Factual Conversations

As a 30-year retired senior officer from the United States Air Force, it is extremely disappointing to see how current senior leaders are being played by the left.  It recently began with an op-ed by the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, celebrated and promoted by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.  The Chief Master Sergeant asserted he was “a Black man who happens to be the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force,” not “the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force who happens to be a Black man.”  These are not equivalent statements.  They speak loudly about how the Chief chooses to define himself.  For example, he also said ““I am George Floyd … I am Philando Castile, I am Michael Brown, I am Alton Sterling, I am Tamir Rice.”  All of these individuals are known by their encounters with police officers.  All these cases were investigated and prosecuted through our legal system. 

The police officer in the Castile case was arrested, charged, tried, and found not guilty.  In the Sterling case, a Grand Jury chose not to indict the officers involved based on the facts of the case.  In the Rice case, a Grand Jury chose not to indict the officers involved based on the facts of the case.

In the case of Michael Brown, a Grand Jury chose not to indict the officer involved based on the facts and testimony from 60 witnesses.  This case is especially disturbing for two reasons.  First, Brown’s accomplice is the one who claimed Brown had his arms up begging the police officer not to shoot, generating the viral meme, “hands up, don’t shoot.”  None of the 60 witnesses corroborated this claim.  He made it up.  Yet it still animates those, like the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, who want to believe this anecdote, thinking Brown was an innocent victim as opposed to a thug.  Second, the Brown incident allowed the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization to gain national prominence after it was spawned a year earlier following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case.  BLM is Marxist-inspired in advancing their “liberate the oppressed” agenda.

The Chief Master Sergeant did not include Martin in his “I am” litany.  Technically Zimmerman was not a police officer; he was a contracted security guard for a private neighborhood.

 

The main target for hatred by the left are cops and white people.  Based on what?  Mythical anecdotes or facts?  Heather MacDonald provides facts that paint a different picture from what the left advances.  The actual data do not support systemic racism.

This week, the Superintendent of the United States Air Force Academy released his own call for “a conversation.”  His call began with this paragraph:

Years ago, racial tension hit our institution. I insisted then that we could not allow it to define us or question our values. I insisted that if you could not treat someone with dignity and respect, you did not belong here. Today I am asking you to join me once again to renew our commitment to those values.

“Years ago” was the Fall of 2017.  The “racial tension hit our institution” is a reference to an apparent racial incident that occurred at the Prep School.  The news reported that racial slurs (the N-word) were written on white boards outside of the rooms of five black prep school students.  A picture of one of the boards was up channeled into the social media realm.  Local news reported the incident.  The Superintendent reacted to the report by lecturing the Academy’s cadet wing (separate from the Prep School). The Superintendent had the ass chewing up channeled on You Tube, which immediately went viral.  The Superintendent became famous for his “leadership” and the darling of CNN (among other mainstream media) interviews with Don Lemon, to humiliate the President for failing to demonstrate such courageous leadership.

 

Then, an investigation into the facts revealed that a disgruntled black prep school student was the one who perpetrated the incident.  In other words, it was a hoax.  Yet, the Superintendent refused to back down from his concern about systemic racism.  I wrote about this here.

Do I think the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, or the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy are bad guys?  No, I believe they have good intentions.  And I strongly support a conversation.  But are those calling for the conversation ready for the truth?  As Jack Nicholson warned in the movie “A Few Good Men,” can they handle the truth?

What Is the Truth?

As the Federal Bureau of Investigation learned from their surveillance and investigations of the Communist Party in America, very few were actual members of the Communist Party.  They counted on a much larger cohort of fellow travelers and sympathizers who were idealists in combatting poverty, inequality, injustice, and all forms of perceived oppression.

Memoirs reveal both anecdotal and factual evidence of this idealism.  See for example, Douglas Hyde (I Believed and Dedication and Leadership);  Bella Dodd (The School of Darkness), and Louis Budenz (This Is My Story, The Cry Is Peace, The Techniques of Communism).

Perhaps the most powerful memoir (accessible here), especially from an African-American perspective, is by Manning Johnson.  His experience of “being played” and how the American Negro was being played was a painful wake-up call.  He spoke from a very compelling perspective.  And he tried to tell his story.  Unfortunately, the left was securely anchored and content with their idealistic myths.  Today, formidable organizations exist to perpetuate these idealistic myths, such as:  Antifa, BLM, Organizing for Action (OFA), and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).  All of these groups are aligned with the Democrat Party.

One of my previous articles provided analysis along these lines.  For example, OFA evolved from “Obama for America” prior to 2008 and his first election, to “Organizing for America” going into the 2012 election cycle, to its current title, “Organizing for Action,” which is heavily funded by the Obama Foundation.

CPUSA has boasted about their role in generating 12 million more votes for Democrat candidates for the House of Representatives and 11 million more votes for Democrat candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives during the 2018 midterm elections.

While there is justifiable outrage about the knee on George Floyd’s neck, where is the outrage about how the left has put its boot on the neck of Trump and members within his political circle?  Absolutely none from the political left.  They have been constant in their resolve to politically assassinate President Trump and his political agenda (e.g., Crossfire Hurricane, the Mueller investigation, impeachment, the left’s exploitation and characterization of the COVID-19 crisis, etc.).

 

Trump and his supporters believe in equality and due process.  This requires truth.  Without truth there can be no justice.

 

What is justice?  Each deserves their due.  Merit is rewarded.  Criminal behavior is not.

Education is a critical preparation for these concepts.  As Bella Dodd reveals in her book, consistent with Marx and Engels’ prescription in their Communist Manifesto, the Communist Party must control education in order to sufficiently indoctrinate generations on the concepts of class warfare and how a Marxist elite (read Democrat Party in America and its teacher’s unions) is needed to liberate the oppressed.  This might explain why all the major metropolitan communities in America have been dominated for decades by the Democrat Party and its perpetuation of real and perceived oppression among minorities, predominantly the African-American.  These demographics are horrendous in terms of black on black homicides, fatherless families, poverty, abortions, incarcerations, and so forth.

Yes, America is well overdue for a conversation on and prosecution of the corruption of Americanism and its most important value of liberty by the Democrat Party and its anti-American “agents for transformation.”

Is the left open to this conversation?  Do honest Democrats want to know the truth and recognize they have been played?  If not, do they stridently demonstrate what bigotry is all about?        

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).

.