Dear Friends:
The root cause of the disagreement between me and Woland over the U.S. Presidential election of 2000 is one of philosophy: I favor limited constitutional government, individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. In contrast, Woland stands for collectivism and subornation of the individual to the State.
As is well known, political science is a branch of philosophy. This is the means by which the "Big Ideas" that guide a nation are put into effect. In America, the real founding father of our republic was the Greek philosopher Aristotle, the father of science who used reason and experiment to explain the world, and his writings on political science which formed the cornerstone of American liberty.
Aristotle's world is one of objective reality where, thru the exercise of reason, the world is made understandable. Thus, man can govern himself without the aid of dictators.
This is in marked contrast to the view held by Aristotle's teacher, Plato. In his REPUBLIC, Plato writes the blueprint of what we would call today a Communist/and or Fascist society. In Plato's republic everyone would have a profession selected by their leaders, and live in a collectivist society. At the top the"philosopher-kings" would rule over this plantation, their power limited only by "reason."
Plato's philosophy can be traced thru the ages to modern philosophers such as Hegel, Marx and Heidegger (The last a Nazi). Aristotle's philosophy can be traced as well: to Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages and Ayn Rand in the 20th century (Rand called her philosophic system Objectivism, but she has always acknowledged the role of Aristotle in its creation).
To briefly summarize: Aristotle's philosophy; his important work on political science, was an important contribution to the creation of English democracy and the American Republic, because it seeks to govern men by means of reason -- it is the philosophy of logical argument. Plato's philosophy and his work on political science, "Plato's Republic" --has become the foundation for any number of dictatorships the world has fallen victim to, as it is the philosophy of brute force.
We come finally to contemporary events in the world: Decision 2000. One of the two major players is the Republican Party, which advocates the rule of law and reason in its disputes. The second player is the Democratic Party which follows the philosophy of Plato -- that force -- and changing votes in South Florida is an indirect use of force -- to accomplish its goal of a collectivist America.
It is said that this is a close election. This is not true! In the large urban areas of the Northeast, Southernmost east (Palm Beach County) and urban California the majority of votes went to Gore. In the Southeast, Southwest and West (To include Alaska) the majority of votes went to Bush.
This is because in America's Heartland Aristotle's philosophy, called "common sense" by the common man is still dominant and he believes in independence, individual responsibility and self-reliance; he distrusts the liberal intellectuals, the elite media and wants less not more government interference in his life. The people of the Heartland are disgusted by the immoral and corrupt conduct of the Clinton-Gore Administration. The Heartland of America is also the Bible Belt.
In stark contrast the Democratic Party wants a European style "Social Democracy." This philosophy of collectivism has been drummed into the heads of countless students at most elite American and State supported universities by several generations of American teachers. This collectivist viewpoint is also called "Political Correctness", which holds that the individual's race, class and gender is the determining factor in his life. Since the individual is nothing and social forces everything, the "masses" must rise up and seize control of the economy. Of course, under the guidance of the "educated elite", as the term Philosopher-Kings is out of fashion.
Therefore, this difference in philosophy is the root cause of my conflict with Woland, and the division of America into two camps where compromise is no longer possible, and a divided world where one side holds the rights of man supreme -- and another would enslave men in order to create utopia, which is Latin for a place on earth that does not exist and will never exist.
In the words of Lincoln, "A house divided against itself cannot stand; it must become all of one thing or all of another."
The 21st century should be quite interesting.
Published November 26, 2000:
No comments:
Post a Comment