Are you kidding? Mao- like Lenin and Stalin- were known for not tolerating any dissent and quite literally 'killing the messenger' if they did not like the message. Mao's "Great Leap Forward" was a monumentous example of illogical thinking and bad planning, and if Mao had advisors willing to speak openly of their concerns it would never have went forward. But he did not, and thirty million people starved. Lenin was so committed to the Marxist ideal, he remarked that he would rather see the people of Russia starve than allow for free trade in grain. And so he got his wish. These communist leaders were terrorizers and brutal dictators in action, regardless of how noble or selfless they were in intent. And they were failures by their own measure- the promises of communism itself- regardless of whether they went to their graves in denial of that fact. Communism did not fall apart because of a disagreement over premises; it fell apart because, quite simply, it is a system that cannot work in the real world. It fails to deliver on its promises, and is inherently illogical in ways that forced its demise. The implementation of communism by Mao Zedong was neither 'efficient' nor 'unemotional' either and I marvel at your willingness to throw out such a soundbite. Central planning is perhaps the most UNefficient way to run a country there is, providing unfathomable amounts of comic bureacracy and waste. Millions of people starving is not efficient. When I was in Eastern Europe I heard stories of thousands of acres of wheat rotting in the fields for lack of fuel to run the harvesting machines, while just down the road fueling station managers were pouring gasoline into the ground(!) because their stockpiles were full and no new distribution orders had arrived. As for being unemotional: ruthless dictators committed to impossible ideals, to the point of ordering mass murder and instigating their own demise, don't exactly seem to fit the calm and collected profile. If you read "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek you will see how socialism in its strongest form must lead to impoverishment and totalitarianism by default. So no, the problem I have is not with communism's warm fuzzy premises, but rather its inevitably abhorrent and disastrous results. Your casual analysis of a failed system as logical in its own way makes me wonder- you seem to present logic as a subjective, malleable thing that is based on personal preference and subjective opinion, rather than a tool for objectively measuring reality (in as much as that is possible) outside of personal preference and subjective opinion. But that is emotion you describe, not logic, and I still fear you inadvertently combine the two. I think the problem most left wingers have, if not most Americans, is that they haven't thought things through. It is not a basic disagreement of premise as much as a lack of logical connection between action and result. We need more clear thinking!! Again I suggest logic and emotion work in concert when they are properly aligned, but emotion provides motivation rather than tools for decision making. If you are a heart surgeon performing an emergency operation on your own child, emotion will give you great motivation- but it certainly won't guide your hands or aid you in the cricitical decisions set before you. If you are genuiney interested in exploring more about how emotion and logic should work together when properly aligned, I suggest picking up "The Abolition of Man" by CS Lewis. (And Hayek wouldn't hurt either on the communism thing.) And now, in the interest of time management, I must let logic hold sway over emotions and tear myself away from this board once again...
My initial response is this: You are seeing things through "your" logic based on your own personal premises and preferences. Nearly every married man experiences from time to time that women are "illogical" when in fact I discovered long ago that women simply argue from a different set of premises. If you take their point of view on issues, their arguments makes perfect sense and the thinking process they employ is indeed logical. Same with the spread of communism by Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and the spread of Nazism by Hitler. If you looked at it from their point of view, if you accepted some of their basic premises, their actions were quite logical and efficient. We denounce their politics mostly from a moral perspective that differs from our own. They weren't madmen in action, they had a belief system that we view as mad. I personally don't agree with or adopt for myself their first premises, but to understand an enemy in order to beat them, or to come to an agreement with a loved one for that matter, who has a different premise than myself that they operate from------and it is my experience that most premises are based on emotion and primitive belief systems not born of common sense and reason (Religious belief is based on feeling for the most part)--------it is necessary to walk a mental mile in their shoes to see and understand their logic. What I get from you, by the recommendations to read C.S. Lewis, who espouses a Christian moralist perspective, is that you have a concept of what are the "right" first premises on the basis of personal religious beliefs, and from that foundation you also have the "right" first perspectives of how other men should think and behave with others. My guess is that your concept of "natural law" is actually the nature of Christianity's concept of morality, which of course stands in opposition to atheism, polytheism, or a myriad of other belief systems. That you many want to bring Christian moral concepts into politics (which is what a majority of the right wing does) is of course your choice, but I prefer the secular discussions concerning issues of a political nature where agreement can be found among all belief systems. What I have typically seen is that when individuals brings their own views on God into how others should live their lives, people who don't agree often die. A brief review of history will show how many wars were based on one side's belief in their God's plan for all men versus an alternative belief in what the other side viewed as their own religious belief in God's plan for what was best for all men. Once you get down to the bottom line, and someone says "because the Bible told me so" the discussion is over. At that point the best that can be achieved is a live and let live, a friendly and peaceful agreement to agree to disagree.
Liberalism has failed in every exercise of its existence! The only things there are to show for in this entire world from Liberalism are, death, disorder, and dependency. Most of the current worlds problems stem from weak capitulated mentalities that originate from liberalistic ideologies.....Chaos in the Middle East, Starving Africans, A corrupt Russia, Expanding world nuclear programs, Continually testing terrorism, Etc. All this from the mentalities of fear and weakness, or the unwillingness to face realities with firm conviction of moral clarity backed by decisive actions. In the 90's the U.S. administration flooded the world with "settlementized appeasement". The U.S. screamed to the world a very inconsistent and at many a times a very compromised message of Liberalism. Always "feel" and zero "think" was the foundation of the U.S. policies which taught the world to no longer respect American power. Now the U.S. is caught in the miserable position of having to re-educate the world back to our necessary commitments to the principles of strength. The U.S. needs to be the primary leader in the world....period!!! The U.S. needs to embrace the role of world leadership once and for all...and never again can we as American citizens allow a Liberal administration to confuse the world away from that which brought our blessed country to power. Chris
Chris, Liberalism is <b>way</b> too broad a term for such blanket statements...but if you were to just edit out 'Liberalism', and replace it with 'Collectivism', I'd agree with every word! http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Liberalism
One glaring and obvious apect of fanaticism is the use of absolutes in speech. In times of trouble, absolutism and US versus THEM is comforting to the fearful heart. When someone uses all or nothing statements, reasoning processes based on the use of selected incidents to a generalization of all members of a group, and totality of thought that is egocentric in nature...you have the cornerstone of fascism. All one has to do is to read the speeches of charismatic totalitarian leaders of the past hundred years, leaders that focus on blaming a group or style of thought as the source of problems for all the ills of a society, and you can see how the emotions can be whipped up into a frenzy to a point where reason is overtaken by self-righteousness and zealotry. Common sense is nearly always on vacation when these fanatics rise to power. All that was missing from your diatribe was the use of the term "Der Fatherland."
Nazi's, Fascist, Communists were all groups with ill fated and highly destructive global political and social economic agendas. Every one of these ideologies was finally defeated in some form through the unconquerable nature of those countries with some aspect of moral clarity. There is a "right" and a "wrong" in this world with absolutely no gray, and there are leaders who will always be responsible to carry out that which is right. The "wrong" of this world must be prosecuted without mercy. There is no room for morally vacant appeasement in the dealings with those who have chosen to act against the good of man. Terrorism for instance, like all other forms of human manipulation in its contempt of a free world, should be destroyed with the utmost prejudice. There should be no room for codling or any exercise in understanding the fabricated positions of those who are clearly "wrong". There is a very clear and required duty for those who are good in this world to defeat those who act against us. The U.S. must fill this role to lead the world through the most difficult and yet mandatory actions to defend the good and destroy those who would bring harm to this world. Chris
Did you major in self righteousness in college? "The U.S. must fill this role to lead the world through the difficult and yet mandatory actions to defend the good and destroy those who would bring harm to the world?" And Jews are the chosen people, the Bible told me so, manifest destiny, divine right of kings....yada, yada, yada. You are a zealot. Just as zealous as those who flew the planes into the twin towers on the basis of their religious and political fervor. They too believed themselves to be soldiers on a mission from God fighting on the side of righteousness in a Holy war.
i used to watch CNN, but i've been watching Fox News for years, although i do not agree with them on everything. i'm someone who likes both o'reilly AND geraldo. i think Fox News' reporters/anchors/hosts are very solid.