Not Ideology… Terminology

by Sean Purcell

Real Estate Renaissance Man

Author website

Do you still wonder whether banks will be nationalized?  Does the idea of an auto manufacturer declaring bankruptcy scare you even just a little?  Tell me you’re not still engaged in any discussions on whether or not the response to our economic crisis has been a step toward “socialism!”  Please, come down off your soap box.  This discussion of competing ideologies is so 20th century.  Disco is dead baby and it’s time you adopted a new framework of thinking.  What’s probably confusing you is that the ideology has already been settled.  Once you see all of this to be purely matters of terminology, you’ll also gain an insight into what happens next.

For a short while, President Obama’s critics tried to frame the discussion in terms of Socialism.  This is a non-starter.  I think if you were to poll this president and this congress – a few far-left nuts not withstanding – you’d find each of them expressing a love for this country and not a one expressing a desire to become a Socialist State – even passing polygraphs.  You’re using the wrong terminology!  Accusing this administration of moving us toward Socialism may have the support of a technical definition, but it drips of ideological connotations where none belong.  Think of it this way: the nuns in a convent live in a technically defined communist system (from each according to her ability, to each according to her need).  But would you call them communists?  Not only is the connotation unjust, the ideology is not accurate.  This is what still causes those trepidations mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Listen to me and find some peace.  The new ideology has actually been in place and growing for some time.  The recent election was only the crowning of its leader.  We must move away from Democrats vs. Republicans (too often these days, a distinction without a difference) and understand the new dimension, which is Progressive vs. Self-Reliant.  The progressives have been in power in Congress for some time now.  The first $350 billion to banks, the AIG bail-out, the “loans” to GM & Chrysler and so on; these actions were all cut from the same ideological cloth we’re witnessing now, only executed poorly.  The progressive vision was not yet in place but the premise certainly was.

The progressive movement, in a nutshell, believes that a room full of the right people: smart, empathetic, energetic and highly motivated knows better how to solve the country’s problems than the messy, painful, erratic cycles of the free market.  Their pronouncement to the masses, in its basest form: “Please quietly sit down in the back seat and try not to be too distracting.  We’re the best drivers, we’ve chosen the best route and you’ll like the destination when we get there.” The popularity of this movement has grown along with the “entitlement” nature of our populace.  During the last election, I observed that we were at a tipping point; for the first time in our history there were more people in the entitlement camp than there were in the self-reliance camp.  This was plainly evident when listening to the two candidates speak.  “Democrat & Republican” were somewhat useless as descriptions when it came to domestic affairs.  Instead, we had a one-party race between two candidates competing to see who could promise the most in return for your vote.  (On the national level we call this type of quid pro quo a presidential election.  On the state level we call it pork-barreling.  On the local level it’s simply felony bribery.)  This was an election between a progressive with a vision and a progressive without one.  If Senator McCain had won we’d still have a progressive leader, but in disarray and more similar to the last days of President Bush.  As it turns out, we elected the progressive candidate with a vision, thus affording us a smoother and more rapid pace at which to alter the very foundation of our nation.  (Whether that’s to our benefit or not I leave to you.)

Gaining this more accurate insight into the ideology of those who govern (and those who requested them), allows us to make much greater sense of previous anomalies while also giving us some purchase on how future issues will play out.  For instance, it’s now easier to understand why a team as well run and intelligent as the President-elect’s, could nominate and then stay with Senator Tom Daschle for THE primary position within the cabinet, knowing about his tax issues.  At the time of his withdrawal for consideration, the official response was yes, they knew about his tax issues but didn’t think it would be a problem, given the fact that he was the exact right man to fill this all important post.  You see?  When you’re a progressive with the chance to save our country from itself, you tend to not waste time on such pedestrian issues as taxes and laws.  The potential for a new and better outcome far outweighs these minor transgressions.  Nothing new here; Congress routinely exempts itself from the very laws it passes.  This “ends justifying the means” becomes so much more true when you are “the right man for the job.”  “Please quietly sit down in the back seat and try not to be too distracting.  We’re the best drivers, we’ve chosen the best route and you’ll like the destination when we get there.”

The same understanding explains a stimulus bill stuffed with everything but an actual stimulus.  President Obama noted that the bill “put his agenda in place” (and by extension, the agenda of the progressive movement).  The putative writer of the bill, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, “called the legislation ‘historic and transformational’ for its investments in the Democrats’ social priorities.”  Substitute Progressive for Democrat and you begin to see the true purpose behind the bill.  The recession is not the first priority.  Getting the power centralized so that those smart, empathetic, energetic and highly motivated people gathered in the room on the hill can get to work; that’s the purpose.  The recession itself is helpful in this regard and will disappear under their fine tutelage.  This understanding even explains the snide, arrogant rejoinder by President Obama when he said “this is a stimulus bill.  The definition of a stimulus bill is to spend,” (a mistake in definition if not in fact that just about any grade school child could explain). “Please quietly sit down in the back seat and try not to be too distracting.  We’re the best drivers, we’ve chosen the best route and you’ll like the destination when we get there.”

This new-found understanding can also, as I previously mentioned, shed light on decisions to come.

• Will the banks be nationalized? Of course not.  Although any bank that does not pass The Stress Test (a test we created, the correct answers for which we also created) will come under our ownership so that the most intelligent people in the room can demonstrate how to properly run a bank.  We’re not going to nationalize the banks, we’re simply going to own and run them… which is completely different. “Please quietly sit down in the back seat and try not to be too distracting.  We’re the best drivers, we’ve chosen the best route and you’ll like the destination when we get there.”
• Will GM & Chrysler go bankrupt? Of course not.  Instead, we will help them financially and – more importantly –  we will help them run their business (not to be confused with owning them!) thus preserving the universal dignity of all workers to be union members while also, finally, producing a green car that we know everyone actually, secretly wants to drive.  “Please quietly sit down in the back seat and try not to be too distracting.  We’re the best drivers, we’ve chosen the best route and you’ll like the destination when we get there.”

The list could go on: AIG? Simply needs enough money and new regulations to find its path.  We have the brain power for that.  Health Care? Every single person was born with the right to health care (unlike some imaginary, inalienable right to the fruits of your labor) and once we put the smartest people in the room to work on it, the system will sing harmoniously.  So forth and so on.  Once you understand the ideology of who is driving and what the rest of us should be doing –“Please quietly sit down in the back seat and try not to be too distracting.  We’re the best drivers, we’ve chosen the best route and you’ll like the destination when we get there.” – you have a pretty good idea what’s going to happen each step of the way.

“But wait,” you might protest.  “I do have a pretty good idea what’s going to happen each step of the way… especially the last steps.  This brand of progressive philosophy was practiced in California for years and it bankrupted the 8th largest economy in the world!“

You might just have a point there.  You might even want to know how the experts and intellectuals in Washington, DC are going to do things so much better than the experts and intellectuals in Sacramento did.  The answer, of course, will come down to you as if carried by angels: “Please quietly sit down in the back seat and try not to be too distracting.  We’re the best drivers, we’ve chosen the best route and you’ll like the destination when we get there.”

Welcome to the Nanny State.  It’s no longer a matter of ideology… simply one of terminology.