An Escalation in Class Warfare

The article was entitled, “Austerity' policy: Low-paid foot the bill” by Sally Kohn, November 30, 2011. 

Not that I want you to waste any of the precious moments of your life reading it, but if you want to verify quotes or assess my reactions, you can find the article at

www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/opinion/kohn-austerity-measures/index.html?hpt=hp_t1&is_LR=1

There is a great deal of extremism in the news these days, and more in the opinion pieces.  Even so, this article stands apart in its far left radical perspective.  I might go so far as to call it propaganda, although its errors are more of implication and invective than outright dishonesty.  It is anti-capitalist, anti-business, and anti-government. 

I know that these perspectives exist.  If I hadn’t realized it before, I have been alerted by the Occupy movement that socialist and communist sympathizers are alive and well in the United States.  What really concerns me is that this is presented on CNN without introduction, without comment, without disclaimer, as if it were just another op-ed piece, when it is actually laying the foundation for an insurgent movement to dismantle the free enterprise system.

I am not given to hyperbole, and I have no desire to inflame.  I believe we have too much of all that now, and it divides us when we should be uniting to work together.  Yet I feel an obligation to alert those of you who may not have noticed that the rhetoric of the public debate is escalating and becoming more extreme.  

  

The first thing that I must point out is that the fundamental stance and orientation of this article are Marxist.  Whether the author is actually affiliated with the Communist Party I do not know.  What I do see are her underlying beliefs, evident in the words she writes.  It seems to me that those words are designed to prepare the people for the end of the 'corrupt capitalist system' and the rise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

A Marxist point of view is not illegal, this is not McCarthyism, and the author has committed no crime.  The author has the right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to believe as she wishes and to write about it.  Now I have the right to express my thoughts in response. 

I believe that it is extraordinarily important for people to realize that advocates of Marxism are routinely editorializing on some of our main news outlets.  We need to be alert and wise enough that we are not deceived by their rhetoric, nor mistaken about their motives.

The author portrays herself as an advocate of the downtrodden, and models the moral indignation against the prosperous that will fuel ‘the revolution.’  She says things to imply her empathy for the masses.  But the historical record is clear on this point: If her Marxist objectives ever are achieved, the result will be far more painful to the masses than any problem she describes in this article.  Is she deceptive or just foolish?  I’m not sure which, and I’m not sure it matters to the rest of us.

The author writes:

“…not only are austerity plans failing to rescue wayward nations, they're causing even greater harm.”

We’re talking about short-term pain to stop long term collapse.  The author seems not to understand that without action to curb the international government debt crisis, the situation will become much worse.  The alternatives are not ‘pain’ or ‘no pain,’ they are ‘pain now’ or ‘greater pain later.’  I wonder who she would blame if governments kept those social programs paying out until the governments themselves collapsed, at which time all social programs would collapse with them. 

The author’s position seems to be that we shouldn’t do anything, no matter how necessary, if it hurts.  Perhaps her motto should be “No pain, No gain, No problem.”  The implication that solving this problem painlessly is a possibility is dishonest and extremely seductive to the poor.  Politicians have been wrangling votes for generations by promising such impossibilities.  This partisan is no different, except in her ultimate objective.

She also writes:

“The alleged "deficit crisis" is merely a fig leaf to cover the long-standing neoconservative agenda to gouge public sector unions and poverty alleviation programs and further game politics and the economy to help big business and the rich.”

In this one sentence we are presented with paranoid conspiracy theories, implied threats to our future well-being, and outrage against the evil bourgeois.  This really could be a page straight from the writings of Karl Marx.  Fear and hatred are far more effective motivators for the coming revolution than reason or reality, and the author here stokes the fires of distrust, internal strife, and class warfare. 

She writes further:

“The economic elites… argue that… gains for the super rich will "trickle down" to the rest of us while [they are] simultaneously destroying… middle-class opportunity and stability in Europe and America for decades.”

In good Communist style the author accuses “elites” of attempting to destroy “middle class opportunity and stability.”  The reality is that her unnamed strategy of Marxism is what will ultimately destroy the prosperity of the middle class.  This kind of Orwellian doublespeak is a variation of “The Big Lie.” [Note 1]

If you look closely, you will find more logical inconsistencies.  For instance, near the end of the article the author quotes Saint Teresa of Avila as saying “Pain is never permanent.”  Then in the very next paragraph, she writes, “the pain of budget cuts is definitely permanent.” 

What’s that?  Why does the author quote Saint Teresa only to contradict her?  Was the author borrowing the credibility of a saint, and a female saint known for her suffering at that, to create an illusion of sympathy for the poor?  That’s my guess.

Despite the fact that the author quoted her, I doubt the author really likes Saint Teresa because the saint also wrote, “If you have God you will want for nothing.”  That attitude doesn’t exactly match up with the Marxist game plan. 

Incidentally, the “definitely permanent” remark doesn’t hold water, either.  Funding that is reduced can be restored.  Those who endure hardships find ways to cope, and sometimes emerge stronger for the experience.  The implication that fiscal restraint is worse than the intense suffering of a 16^th century mystic is contrived and disingenuous.

Here are a few of my own assertions.  Maybe the author will be kind enough to tell me how I am wrong for believing these things. 

* Governments that don’t have enough money to pay the bills should cut spending or raise taxes to create fiscal balance.

* Being prosperous does not make one culpable for all the ills of society, nor does it make one evil.  (It is ironic that the author should imply so, since she claims that austerity measures will lead to less prosperity for the poor, and that this will “cripple the middle class” and end up “hurting working families.”) 

* It is not the responsibility of government to make everyone prosperous.  In fact, it is not possible.

* Paying for good government is the responsibility of all, not only of the rich.  (Although the rich will logically pay more than the poor because of their greater resources, every member of a society who is able should contribute something for the operation of the government.) 

I agree that there is unfairness in our system, and that we should seek to make it better.  I oppose handouts to big business.  I know the leadership of the largest corporations has sometimes been ruthless and arrogant.  I know that our U.S. tax codes need to be revised. 

None of that means we should give up on economic freedom.  If some are not paying their fair share because of loopholes, then Congress should close them.  If regulations need to be revised to prevent fraud or unfairness, then Congress should revise them.  But pundits preaching against the system that has created the prosperity enjoyed in the America and the western world should be careful not to trash the entire system because it hasn’t created enough prosperity.  Why would we discard the economic system that has created the highest standards of living on the planet because it is not 100% perfect, or because some have found ways to abuse it?  That approach would be like burning down the house because the carpets are dirty.  Instead of pouring gasoline on the carpets, we should be scrubbing them clean. 

Beside all that, if you trash our economic system completely, you might not like the system that would take its place.  Communism did not work in 20^th century Eastern Europe or Asia, and it will not work in 21^st century Western Europe or America.  That is the Big Lie, and it needs to be exposed, not blithely promulgated.

This article does not help resolve our current problems.  On the contrary, it provides justification (however flawed) for malcontents to vent their fury by tearing down the very system that could, in time, solve the problems they cry about.  It creates artificial divisions among the populace and lays the groundwork for a growing insurrection based on envy, avarice, and a culture of condemnation.

Don’t be deceived.  The entire argument of this author is the myth that the rich and the poor are natural enemies.  Not so.  The interests of rich and poor lie in the same direction. [Note 2]  Prosperity is not a commodity to be taken from one group and delivered to another.  It is the result of a group or a society working together for the common good.  We’re going to need to work together to get through all this.

Gryphem

Note 1: See the novel 1984 by George Orwell.

Note 2: With thanks to Chris Dominguez of ‘The Silent Majority’ website.