Never Vote for a Right-Wing Politician - Part 2

One day after publishing my previous post on how you should never vote for a right-wing politician, one of the biggest conmen in the history of politics, Nigel Farage, announced that he will be a candidate for Parliament in the United Kingdom. Farage's lies during the Brexit campaign are a perfect example of why you should never trust candidates on the far-right.

As you may recall, Nigel Farage was a pivotal voice in scaring and angering Britons into believing that leaving the Europe Union (EU) was a good idea. Of course, it wasn't a good idea, and the majority of UK citizens (and probably politicians) realize that in retrospect. To further convince voters that leaving the EU was in their benefit, Farage stated that money that would normally be funneled to the EU would instead be redirected to the National Health Service (NHS). At the time, the NHS in the midst of a financial crisis, and was in need of assistance. On the face of it, Farage's statement on funding sounded like a positive for the Leave option. Too bad it had no basis in reality.

The morning following the Brexit referendum in which the citizens of the UK narrowly opted to leave the EU, Farage appeared on a morning television show in which he was asked about his statements regarding the funding of the NHS post-Brexit. To the utter shock of the TV presenters, and probably the viewing public at home, Farage stated that he didn't actually know if leaving the EU would help to fund the NHS. In other words, he had made it all up. He had lied. And the public believed the lie, and now they were stuck with the result. 

To the credit of the morning show's hosts, they highlighted the fact that Farage had lied to the British public to get what he wanted. They should have shamed and embarrassed him more than they did. But the damage was done. Farage, like most right-wing politicians, will say whatever he needs to in order to manipulate votes in his favor. And that's what he did. He was never looking out for the average UK citizen. He only cared about himself and his powerful friends.

I don't know how the average citizen could trust this man again. He'll lie and use the same dirty tricks that he used during Brexit. He literally doesn't give a shit about Britain or the average citizen. He just wants to maintain the status quo for elites, and make it easier for them to steal your money. And to do that, he'll say anything to get your vote. Don't believe him - ever. Please.

Never Vote for a Right-Wing Politician

Never vote for a right-wing politician. They never deliver on what they promise, unless it's a promise to be cruel to another group of people. They're good at that. But they're not so good at keeping their promises on making society better (except for a select few: their donors and their wealthy friends). And that's because they never had any intention to make things better for you. They're not interested in you. They are only interested in your vote.

I do find it remarkable that in 2024 the world is seeing a resurgence in the popularity of right-wing politics. Apparently, the lessons learned from the disastrous reigns of Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and countless others in the 20th century are in the too distant past. As a species, we don't seem to be able to make a connection between atrocities exacted on others and the ideologies that led to them. Because if you could make that connection, and you were horrified by the holocaust, numerous mass killings in the 20th century, and other acts of imperialist aggression, then how could you even consider supporting politicians like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Javier Milei, Giorgia Meloni, Marie Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, etc.? Their plans are to revisit all of these disasters on the world again, yet the average citizen seems oblivious to the peril.

I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised. As a collective, human beings are not much more evolved than the rest of the animal kingdom. We are still ruled by fear and anger. Even when our lives are not at stake, we tend to react in extreme and disproportional ways, as if there were an existential crisis, to whatever our problems are. And the existential crisis that does face us, climate change, is ignored. It's not in our face enough. It hasn't become personal to enough people that will trigger the political will necessary to change our trajectory.

I was reminded of the stupidity of humankind when I recently read Walter Tevis's 1963 novel, The Man Who Fell to Earth. It is the story of an alien, Newton, who has been sent to Earth with a mission of helping his species to migrate to Earth because of drought on his home planet. Near the end of the novel, Newton is having a conversation with Dr. Bryce (a human interested in understanding Newton better) who is trying to convince Newton that humans are intelligent and should be given the opportunity to solve their own problems. 

Newton: “Do you realize that you will not only wreck your civilization, such as it is, and kill most of your people; but that you will also poison the fish in your rivers, the squirrels in your trees, the flocks of birds, the soil, the water? There are times when you seem, to us, like apes loose in a museum, carrying knives, slashing the canvases, breaking the statuary with hammers.”

Dr. Bryce: "But it was human beings who painted the pictures, made the statues.”

Newton:  "Only a few human beings, only a few.”

"Only a few human beings." What a great reminder that only a very few human beings have demonstrated genius in some way throughout human history. The rest of us are rather ordinary and mediocre, but we tend to take a lot of pride in the accomplishments of these very few. It helps us to feel special. But perhaps we shouldn't. Perhaps we should be more humble as a species. After all, we're just like the rest of the animal kingdom - ruled by our base emotions and needs. 

When it comes to acquiring your vote, political consultants, especially those on the right, have learned that they don't actually need to do anything for the average voter. They just need to make them afraid or angry (or both). That's the key. Appeal to the base emotions. Distract voters with issues that are not actually critical to the functioning of society, but they are issues which stoke fear and/or anger, and then talk about them constantly. In today's world with instant access to information, the narrative of political messaging could be demonstrably false, but the sheer repetition of that message turns it into a sort of alternative truth. And if that alternative truth somehow confirms an underlying bias, then it becomes even more powerful. Basically, the average voter's brain has been hacked.

Example issues from the present and recent past are immigration, gay marriage, trans rights, "entitlement" programs, and abortion. Of course, these are all important issues, but if you are voting for a candidate primarily based on their stance on one of these issues without any knowledge of what they think about the economy and international affairs, then you are likely to be screwed by this politician in some way. The reality is that these issues provide cover for the real agenda: to maintain the status quo for powerful elites and to consolidate power. 

Wealthy donors on the right don't give a shit about immigration. They care about protecting their assets and protecting their ability to amass wealth. So, efforts like tort reform, appointing federal judges, privatization of government agencies, and reduction of the social safety net are far more important to their objectives than immigration and trans rights. Right-wing politicians may keep their promises on the issues of distraction, but don't be surprised when they screw you based on the agenda they didn't tell you about. 

Privatization of government services, and now you have to pay more money; allowing venture capital firms to buy residential real estate making it difficult for the average person to buy a home; high prices at the grocery store because corporate greed is rewarded by the stock market; the rising costs of healthcare in a system run by for-profit insurance companies. These are a few examples of what you will get when you vote for a right-wing politician. NONE of it benefits you. In fact, for most voters, the hidden agenda is directly contrary to their interests. But you got tricked. You didn't ask yourself, "Who really benefits from this candidate rising to power?" It's probably not you. Never vote for a right-wing politician.

Watching Fascism Rise

 Is it me, or is The New York Times standing on the sidelines as fascism (aka, Donald Trump) becomes a very real threat to whatever level of democracy that has actually existed in the United States for the last 250 plus years? I suppose this is what happens when news organizations are run for profit and entertainment rather than their constitutionally enshrined role of being one of the checks and balances versus tyranny. Not that the Times has ever been the liberal mouthpiece that some have claimed, but to just stand by and watch the whole American experiment unravel without raising the alarm day after day seems irresponsible for the nation's "paper of record."

Debt Limit Dishonesty

 In Stephanie Kelton's book, The Deficit Myth, she pointed out that the notion that the government should be run like a household or a business is incorrect. First, government serves a special function in society that is not equivalent to a household or business. It serves the people and provides vital services for communities. This is true at the federal level as well. Government does not exist for the purpose of profit like businesses do. It is also not on a simple budget with income and expenses. Government budgets are more complicated because the government, at the Federal level, creates and issues the currency. And so if the Federal government shows debt on its books, that's not necessarily a bad thing like it might be for an individual or family.

Why is government debt a good thing? Since the Federal government is the issuer of the currency, then it follows that its spending is not taxpayer funded (that's a myth). The government creates the currency, and then disperses it to various entities. If the government has debt, that means the currency is in the public domain and can be used by others for various projects/activities. Treasury bonds are sold as a means of covering the debt. The US government hasn't borrowed money from some mythical evil lender. It has "borrowed" the money from itself. The increase in the currency supply is simply an entry in a digital ledger.

Debt is likely the wrong term to use because it implies something that isn't really happening. It would be better to think of this concept as money in circulation. If that number gets too high, it could be a problem, but that depends on a number of other complex factors. Needless to say, the US government isn't at a point in which there is too much money in the overall supply.

The arguments over the debt limit are disingenuous and dishonest. The government is not a household and it is not a business. Households and businesses don't issue currency, so they have to operate under different rules than the US Government. But politicians either know this or they're just plain stupid. The term government debt has been part of the public lexicon so long that it is hard to change the conversation about it. The idea that the current debt is something we are passing on to future generations to pay back is complete bullshit. There will always be debt, if you want to use that term. It's how the government operates. By the way, notice how these same politicians seem to have no concern about passing a climate disaster on to future generations. That's how you know they have no concern about the children of the future. The debt is simply a political weapon to bargain for spending cuts and tax cuts (how do tax cuts help the debt???).

Why do conservatives want spending cuts? That's a good question, and it has nothing to do with reducing the debt because they don't care about the debt (Notice how the Federal deficit always increases more under Republican administrations than it does under Democratic ones - why is that?). To answer the question of why Republicans want spending cuts, take a look at what gets cut. It's never the military. It's almost always programs designed to help people. They are the so called "entitlement" programs for those "other" people that are frequently on the chopping block. By cutting these programs, the demand for them is not decreased, but instead, that demand can now be shifted to the private sector in which a profit can be made. In other words, spending cuts enable the privatization of key services that the government has been fulfilling for decades. Any government spending on these programs will then be coordinated through private entities. This is similar to how private contractors engage with the military now. The government will become more of a cash cow for corporate America. That's how conservatives see government spending - not as something incurring debt, but rather a large pool of money that they would like to get their hands on and use to generate larger and larger profits. That's what would happen if Social Security is cut and then privatized. The big banks would then be in charge of that large pool of money which they could use for a variety of purposes with no real guarantee for citizens that they will have to pay out benefits. 

So, the debt limit discussion has nothing to do with the debt. It has everything to do with shifting more and more money into the hands of large banks, large corporations, and the oligarchs of our society. As usual, the average voter doesn't realize this and is instead triggered by the word debt. They react to the notion that the government needs to control its spending, especially on social programs and other fluff like education. Military and police budgets are never put on the table. Those budgets always seem to be able to find new cash - where do you think that comes from?

The next time you see politicians decrying the debt situation, know that they are full of shit. Whatever deal they reach, you will likely end up being worse off (unless you are an oligarch, then congratulations are in order).

Snowflakes

 It's ironic that the people in the US who decry those to their left as snowflakes infected by woke-ism are the biggest snowflakes of all. Has there ever been a more fragile generation? From the thin-skinned politicians like Trump and DeSantis to conservative pundits to your average MAGA obsessed groupie, they can't handle any whiff of criticism of their "way of life." Their default answer is to act out with vitriol and cruelty. There is always a bogeyman in the conservative sphere. In the past it was blacks, and then gays. Now it's black people again and trans people. The necessity of the bogeyman in the discussion points to the necessity of vilifying the "other" - the one who is not like "us." For conservatives cannot bring themselves to embrace the whole of humanity. They need to feel special; they need to feed that part of their ego. That's why they're white supremacists. They have an egoistic need to feel better than others or else they might realize that they are just like everyone else.

You can see this need to feel superior in everything they do. They deny others their human rights. They demand everyone subscribe to their version of morality. They enact legislation preventing other people from voting. Conservatives are so threatened by the idea of a diverse society that they are fighting it to their literal deaths. So many of these conservatives are old and white, and will be gone and forgotten in a few years. They are in their death throes, but while they are still here, their goal seems to be to make the US a living hell for everyone else. 

One thing your average conservative voters cannot see is that they are pawns in the struggle for money and power. Because conservatives have such a strong need to be right and to have their way of life validated as the best, they are easily manipulated into anger by politicians who actually know better. Want to mobilize voters on the right? Create a faux controversy like a migrant caravan, trouble at the border, gay marriage, abortion, trans rights, Sharia law (remember that one?!), or the specter of socialism on the rise. None of these issues represent any sort of threat to white conservative voters, but they are presented as existential threats to their way of life. They're not. Although they are real issues affecting real people, the answer isn't to outlaw or deny people their rights because you don't agree with them. This is why conservatives are snowflakes. They can't tolerate disagreement with their worldview. They react emotionally in Pavlov-ian fashion - completely conditioned. There is no rational thought occurring because their threat detector is on high alert. Paranoia and doom rule their minds. It's sad to see people who are generally good and ordinary turned into paranoid and hateful folks who are making the US a more dangerous place to live with each successive day.

Black Lives Matter - Don't Miss The Point

A common response to the Black Lives Matter movement has been "All Lives Matter." I get why people are saying this. Of course, all lives matter. But they're missing the point.

So let's do this. If you're response to Black Lives Matter is all lives matter, then I want you to go and tell the police that all lives matter. And tell them that all lives include Black lives. So perhaps they should stop treating Black people as if their lives don't matter. Because...wait for it...Black Lives Matter too. See how easy that was.

Violence and Groupthink

I watched the Danish film “In a Better World” last night and it got me thinking this morning about violence between individuals and between groups.  I find it interesting that when we are younger, an effective strategy for dealing with a bully is standing up to him in a forceful way.  Bullies are often insecure individuals who use power and violence to make themselves feel better, but when challenged they’ll often move along to a new target.  The film showed such a sequence in which young Christian beats the bully, Sofus, with a bicycle pump and threatens his life with a knife.  Sofus is no longer a threat to Christian or his friend Elias after this episode, and in fact Sofus makes an overture to Christian to become friends.

Such a solution on Christian’s part wouldn’t be necessary if more was done at an institutional level to address bullying and its root causes.  That’s a separate discussion, but suffice it to say that victims of bullying are often left to themselves to deal with it, and fighting back may be the only option for some.

However, when it comes to groups, a show of violence generally leads to more violence.  Why do individuals react one way and groups another?  Is there some dynamic of groupthink involved?  Perhaps it’s due to the fact that not all group members are directly affected by the violence so it becomes easy, and less personal, to continue the cycle.  I feel like that’s part of the problem with the US’s perpetual war in the Middle East.  It’s simply too easy to continue to commit “faceless” troops to the violent conflict.  And once committed, it’s not easy to extricate our forces, as there is no definitive “victory” being sought.  Stopping the conflict will only invite criticism from more members of the group who do not have a personal stake in the violence being committed, and would be a threat to one’s career.  Those in support of violent conflict have done an excellent job of using emotions to drive groupthink.  Fear of terrorism and extremist Islam (ISIL), hyper patriotism (American exceptionalism), and outright hero worship of our troops are all examples of the emotional mechanisms being used against the American public, and they have been very effective.

I did a Google search on groupthink and the violence of nation states, and the results were interesting.  The vast majority were concerned with the actions of terrorist organizations, movements like Occupy Wall Street and #BlackLivesMatter, and other communist/socialist collectivist movements.  I find it strange that there was almost no discussion of the effect of groupthink on US political leadership in the War on Terror.  It seems to me that this would be a fascinating political science research project especially with so many different group dynamics.  As a society, are we too afraid to look in the mirror and honestly assess our role as a nation in the present cycle of perpetual war? 

I do appreciate that the question of how to deal with terrorism is not an easy one.  While I think it’s important to realize how we arrived at this point from a root cause perspective, we have to deal with the present and how to move forward.  Many of those committing terrorist acts have such a different mental model of the world from our own that dialogue is nigh impossible.  Over the last week, I have been listening to “I Am Malala,” and it’s frustrating to hear about the Taliban and it’s impact on Malala’s home valley in Pakistan.  Their beliefs are so antithetical to modern Western civilization that I’m unsure of any basis for negotiation.  Both sides believe the enemy is extreme (and wrong) in its view, and both are correct.  There must be moderate voices on both sides; people who know that the cycle of violence solves nothing.

Just because both sides are extreme doesn’t mean we shouldn’t negotiate or at least continue to make attempts to do so.  The world is not a better place with more violence in this conflict so the moral thing to do is to determine a solution to end it.