Change, the Left, the Right and Moderates Explained and Who to Vote For.

Politics is the mechanism by which group decisions are made according the Wikipedia[1] and that makes sense in many ways. As such, politics is everywhere like the flu, birds or weeds in summer. Nobody can escape the political diseases in family, clubs, churches, school, and offices and on the ski slopes. Politics is a particular human disease where people who no detailed knowledge about any particular subject will rush to the pinnacle of the nearest soap box and present their glubberances and bawl in public for their point.

Baboons and ants have more sophisticated societies.

We have some artificial political  system where we think we can divide our society into the left, the right, the moderates and the extremists, who belong on either the far left or far right. There is no such animal, as yet, as a radical or extremist moderate, but we can maintain our hope. Such a simplistic theory appeals to the mentally disnimble and is a howling success in political systems.

There are some fundamentals about politics that we need to refer to if we are to understand conventional politics. We must begin with the usual artificial divisions and clichés to do so.

[1] The leftist victims are the have-nots and the leftist cadres want some wealth at the expense of others as they cannot, for a number of reasons, get some for themselves. There is no hope here as the ‘poor’ have been poor since the Roman and Greek and Egyptian times and the Punic wars and their adventures were quests for wealth. Pompey and Sulla brought home great wealth for Rome as Rome had little at the time. Octavian made Rome great with Cleopatra’s loot. Most historians agree with Marx that history can be described in terms of class struggles, the left representing the low class. This has not changed, thankfully, for several millennia. Without a decent replacement for capitalism, the left have been unsuccessful since the French Revolution.

[2] The right has always been associated with business and royalty and the ruling classes and was the Patrician class in Rome. Similar cases were observed for the Phoenicians, Egyptians and Carthaginians in the same era. They were originally the merchants and perhaps the artisans in the feudal system along with royalty, but rose to power in England and the US because of their financial power.  What counted was business skills and not heredity. In Rome, the Patricians slowly lost out to the entrepreneurs (mostly by the low child birth rates) in the business arena and capitalism took over. The ethnic basis of Rome shifted from white blue-eyed peoples from North Asia somewhere around modern Moscow around 800 B.C.E. toward the Asians from the East, but the economic systems and the rigid republic constitution persisted until the 5^th century A. D. The ex-slaves and plebeians moved up into the realm of capitalism and gained power until they became emperors too.  This is a demonstration of how capitalism works for anyone who has the skills. This scenario has been played out in many countries around the globe. That is the way things work.  Capitalism works for many, but not for the barbarians or victims of the far left.

[3] The moderates seem to think they are somewhere in the middle of these dynamic forces and can use reason and judgment to sort all these options out, but it is difficult to identify a major political program such as tax policy, war, peace or commerce that could be hailed as moderate. When the votes are counted, however, the self-described moderates become the silly putty of the extremists despite their protestations.  They are the ones who regurgitate the ‘pendulum clichés’ [2]to explain changes.  They are the dolts who think that there are only ‘two sides to the story.’ The independents are just uninformed moderates who are repulsed by the extremists, take to random fantasies and are mere cherries to be picked for each political occasion. Strangely, they are frequently very satisfied with their choices.

Politics runs on persuasion and not truth. A well-crafted lie is worth much more than the truth in the political arena. Politicos employ spin masters to reposition the truth so as to appeal to those who lack the cognitive skills to recognize what is happening. As such, polarization is necessary to separate the issues and the distribution of wealth though taxes so that approval of some fraction of the voting blocks will enable either the right or left. Politics is based on little less than this.

Parts of the lie mechanisms [the preferred method of persuasion of politicians] are related to the education of the masses in terms of what is deemed and taught as  ‘desirable’ and what is not from political leaders. They are assisted by such organizations like the New York Times, the major propaganda source of the left, [3] [4] [5] who still believe they ‘form public opinion.’ The general public is ‘educated,’ for example, that the Nazis and Communists were distinct and diametrically aligned political groups although the Nazis, along with other Fascists were also strongly anti-capitalism.  Both Hitler and Mussolini railed against capitalism in their speeches and memoirs. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, Bernard Shaw and many more were simply socialists in structure.  Shaw praised anything except capitalism, a disease known as Shavianism. [6] Hitler and Stalin cooperated for years in military training and carving up Europe in Poland, the Baltic States and elsewhere. On the very day Poland was invaded by Germany, the USSR was waiting to invade on the Eastern frontier. The left also seem to think that tax hikes can bring prosperity as the New York Times monotonously drones. [7]This is all fluff and propaganda.

The two extremes make much noise about poverty, wealth, health, peace, commerce and taxes that confuse the people on the off-chance that they might get to vote for something meaningful.    Since 1900, very few people as a percentage of persons on this planet ever had a chance to cast a meaningful vote. Millions were persuaded to ‘vote’ for Bolshevism and 100 million died for the effort. This silly notion that the USSR was a ‘democratic’ republic where everybody had the right to vote is a farce given the ugly fact that voters had only one person to vote for. [8] This farce is propagated in Cuba, North Korea and other garden spots where their far leftist economies are total failures. When choices were offered many times the ballot boxes were stuffed as in Mexico, Chicago, New York City, Europe and many other places.

The facts are that some societies cannot manage commerce and provide even the barest essentials to their captive citizens. Africa has a non-stop 7,000 year history of tribalism, slavery, murder and such that was firstly propelled by tribalism alone and is now assisted by Marxism. The combination is more than lethal. China and India were almost always successful in economic terms until the arrival of the Europeans. The British, opium and Marxism [in that order] ruined China in a cruel sequence, who are  now recovering although they persist in a totalitarian government which consumes the proceeds of capitalism for their military and  creature comforts. Again, the left feeds off of the dreaded and much-maligned capitalism. Grunt and grab.

The salient facts are that humans may be conveniently sorted out by the measurement of IQ, good numbers being available by several methods, and that those at the top of the bell curve can work the levers of capitalism to the advantage of almost all citizens. Those at the bottom cannot function in any modern society. As such, they become the victims of the left as they are not skilled enough to analyze the promises and probable outcomes. Those at the top can provide leadership and wealth. The accumulation of such wealth  for the cognitively elite is inevitable given the history of all societies since the Stone Age and thus becomes an automatic target  and frantic cause célèbre of the left and those unwitting moderates whose collective  objective  is to confiscate such wealth, distribute it among the ‘poor’ and needy  and provide ‘equality’ or other such phantasms. Those with the necessary skills to generate business and profits provide the only possible source of wealth, thus power, to the left. The poor cannot assemble a society that rises above the simple hunter-gatherer systems of older ages. Look at Africa, most of Mexico and South America, parts of Asia, India, Indonesia, most of the Middle East and other places for proof. In Africa they now mix tribalism with Marxism to achieve the least hope for a decent society and in the Middle East they mix tribalism with Islam, also hopeless in economic terms. Without oil, both tribal sets would be back in the Stone Age. The proof for all this is to just look around at our current primitive societies and ask the following question: how are they doing and when will they progress above Marxism, tribalism and abject poverty. The answer is never.

When you have a Bell Curve distribution of talents based on cognitive skills and the mental materials to generate commerce and growth, few with lesser skills will gyrate to the top echelons in a society free of leftist controls. The socialist mantra is to produce ‘equal income’ or in the modern leftist parlance ‘equal outcomes,’ which means equal income and equal political economic power except for their controlling  elites. The proof that their victims are clueless is manifest in the Clintons who fast approach a personal fortune of 100 million dollars to match John Kerry and the Kennedy Klan. The ‘poor’ and their mentally deficient moderate allies are oblivious to their elites while they are enjoying the good life at their expense. The Communist elites lived in splendor while the common Russians starved.[9] [10]  Those who cannot compete in business in our society will remain at the bottom and get welfare, drug rehabilitation, and assistance and have some or most of their services provided, such as housing. They can expect little else. They deserve less.

So, listen and analyze the current banter from the three political factions in our current political theatre and ask:

Who wants what?? Who gets what when the political power structure changes?

Does the right want the left to raise taxes, the prime source of their power and income? Can all three groups afford to have universal healthcare? Can we stand ‘more education and government employees?’ California and New Jersey[11] went broke over these issues.

The answer to the questions depends solely on where you stand in one of the three categories of citizens. History shows that when the leftists get control of spending and taxation and the military, they strive to over tax and essentially confiscate wealth and endeavor to prevent the right from sustaining their business and wealth structure. The outcome is always socialism or some outward appearance of this and inflation and social unrest always follow. Communism,[12] a failure, has actually been very beneficial to capitalism.[13]It would be different if socialism has been a success other than the few spots like Sweden or Finland where there are niche economic assets. Selling guns to belligerents for 200 years while maintaining the counterfeit notion of ‘neutrality’ is an easy way to provide a socialist state at the expense of the tragedy of war along with a few hundred million deaths. Europe is a different place after the 100 million dead from two world wars in the last century. Those who survived the bombs still had their souls along with their brains bombed away and embraced socialism at any cost for security. They got just that; they are secure in their pedestrian-level lives.  We should be very suspect about any advice from Europe on matters of social or military concerns. French leaders seemed not to notice 500 cars were torched per night for weeks from the low class expressing their outrage that they could not participate in the French social system at decent economic levels. Switzerland, likewise, is wealthy from their ability to harbor dirty money for dictators and criminals and was a magnet for dope addicts. Netherlands is following along nicely. California will supercede both.

The Choices:

The choice in the current political primary system is fairly clear: if you have nothing or no economic future then you need to vote for those who can promise you something even though they may not be able to deliver on promises. You have nothing to lose except losing more low-paying jobs to technology and recessions. The left is, again, headed by the far left as in the Clinton neo-Marxism, and they have the usual cornucopia of promises to trade for votes. They promise more education, universal healthcare[14], justice, a cure for global warming and citizenship for illegal aliens and much more. Of course, they cannot deliver on any of this as the economy is sagging with debt and a contraction of growth, inflation and massive tax hikes will only drive business off shore where they do not have to put up with high taxation. Hillary thinks she can spend 800 billion dollars and cure lots of social ‘problems’ while balancing the budget. This is impossible, but the notion thrills the left and some moderates. Growth is provided by tax cuts[15] and investment—read individualism—not socialism! Jobs will be lost and the usual socialist tendency will be to just tax more and hire people in government.  We face huge taxes [16]and inefficiencies from the Global Warming Circus.[17] We cannot avoid a close inspection of California, [18]Michigan and New Jersey [19] as we watch them crash financially. Their rotting financial corpses will stink and offend even the flies and the moans and glubbering for a federal bailout will be louder than the music at the Super Bowl. All this will be a clarion call for higher taxes.

For those who are individuals and have little need for big government, the choice is also clear: McCain.

The moderates and independents will follow along in the spirit of the Pied Piper and get what they can, or deserve: McCain.

The broad choice for voters will apparently be between McCain and Clinton. For those who think that we can be taxed into prosperity, they need to look at California, Michigan, Oregon or New Jersey again. The choice is further complicated by the obvious fact that McCain is trying to ‘distance’ himself from Bush and the far right. Those conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity seem to be saying they will not support McCain.

This stance has two possible  and some minor vectors:

[1] That conservative political stance will pull votes away from conservatives that might go to McCain. But, there is no where to go and that means not voting in this round.

[2] That conservative political stance will push votes to McCain from the moderates and independents.

[3] The left and mentally disnimble will vote for Marxism aka —Hillary—no matter what, but will probably lose.

The obvious choice for those who want to preserve their wealth is to go defensive against the looming recession [get out of stocks and buy T-bills and CDs and bonds, etc.] and hold their noses as they vote for McCain and calm him down after he sees the financial difficulties ahead and freaks out. McCain can be restrained on the immigration issue, at least according to his latest complaints, and other follies, but Hillary cannot and must be restrained by the Senate. The Supreme Court has been out of control since the 1950s and must be restrained some more. McCain can appoint some appropriate justices and reverse some of this activism that has allowed the left to circumvent the Legislative Branch. Some of the old High Nine leftists are rotting away in their hallowed black gowns and will not last much longer. Hillary would put Quannel X [20] or Mario Cuomo on the High Court if she could, while McCain will be subject to his promises about future appointments.

Bush is no conservative and belongs to the Group of Idiots the masses seem to vote for like they did for FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Ford and Both Bushes. These people did not understand economics. McCain is also no conservative, but can be handled in certain ways. Hillary is a radical Marxist and a proud Saul Alinsky Communist [21]who will attack capitalism with all her many weapons. She will fail to dent capitalism, but will make the attempt and disrupt the economy in the futile attempt.

McCain is an idiot, but is the lesser threat. The choice here is very clear, so the best approach is to pretend to rail against McCain, howl about high taxes and then vote for the idiot in November. We could all do much worse than that. He cannot be much worse than Nixon, Ford or either Bush. Our 401(k)s seemed to perform well in those eras. Fortunately, we have skilled folk in business, the undesirables being left to the government for jobs.

McCain is the puppet of the moment so we need to work his strings and get him to deflect the far left and their socialism for a while. That worked, in part, with both Bushes.

Vote for McCain.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com