- Text smaller
- Text bigger
The dialectic that drives American politics was quite visible on the inauguration platform. To the left of the Bushes sat the socialists and Gramscian commies: Bill, who burned 80-or-so men, women and children at Waco and handed Elian over to Castro; his sulking partner, Al Gore, whose family owes much of its wealth to Kremlin agent Armand Hammer; and Chris Dodd, senator from Connecticut who spent years defending the Sandinista communists of Nicaragua. They held the White House for eight years, and now their reign was over. Just to have survived them is an achievement.
On their right was George W. Bush, born-again Christian, basically conservative; Dick Cheney, one of the most conservative men who ever sat in Congress; and a whole lot of other people on the side of the Angels. Both ministers, Billy Graham who gave the invocation and the black minister from Houston who gave the benediction, invoked the name of Jesus Christ at the close of their prayers. President Bush took the oath of office with his hand on the Bible. His address had the spiritual tone associated with our religious heritage. After eight years of Clinton debauchery, it was quite a change. Even the presence of the chief justice of the Supreme Court administering the oath had symbolic meaning. It was he who brought the dispute over the vote count in Florida to an end, thus confirming Bush’s victory.
This was a peaceful moment for the dialectic, a brief moment of rest. The system demands it. Although the dialectic is the ongoing, endless conflict between the two philosophies of life and government, there are rules whereby the two sides conduct themselves. Clinton is always trying to stretch the rules, thus his farewell speech was really a critique of the new Bush administration. He’s a dialectician down to his fingernails.
The new president didn’t spend his time criticizing the Clinton administration. He thanked Clinton for his service to the nation. Bush plays by the rules, and he does so graciously. He won in Florida even though the mobs shouting insults at him during the parade didn’t think so. They are also part of the dialectic, the more ugly part. Conservative citizens act differently. They brush up on their Second Amendment rights.
What is the dialectic? It is the means by which the far left moves our society slowly but inexorably in its direction — toward socialism. The dialectical process was conceived in the early 19th century by German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), a pantheist, who believed in a world soul that was using the dialectic process to achieve its own perfection. Since the human race was part of the world soul, our history was also part of this ongoing dialectical process, or conflict, between the thesis and the antithesis to form a new synthesis, which then becomes the new thesis. Karl Marx (1818-1883) junked the spiritual aspect of Hegel’s dialectic, and attached it to a purely materialistic, godless view of the universe — hence the creation of “dialectical materialism,” the process whereby the human race inches toward communism.
In American politics, the dialecticians of the left view the thesis as the conservative status quo, the antithesis as the socialists and communists opposing the status quo, and the synthesis as the new status quo after the conservatives have compromised and moved toward the left. That is why no conservative administration has been able to undo any of the liberal programs and why our federal and state governments keep growing in power and scope, imposing more and more restrictions on American freedom.
A case in point is the Department of Education, which was established by liberals in the Carter administration. Attempts by conservatives to close it down have been thwarted time and again until conservatives have become resigned to its continued existence. What prevents Republicans from breaking the dialectical cycle is their lack of understanding of how it works and their lack of courage. Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. But with the dialectic at work, compromise means surrender on the installment plan.
The Bible, of course, teaches absolutes, for there are no dialectical compromises possible with God’s law. You may disobey His law, but you can’t change it. That is also true of our Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Although the left would like to get rid of them, the best they can do is dialectically tear them apart. It is only the vigilance of patriotic gun owners who have prevented the complete destruction of the Second Amendment.
The control of public opinion by the left is an important factor in the dialectical process. The left, because it controls the mass media, has a tremendously powerful force on its side. If a conservative president tried to close down the Department of Education, the mass media would rise up with a barrage of criticism that would send conservative legislators to their bomb shelters. Many parents, willing pawns of the dialecticians, would rise up in anger against those members of Congress who would dare to close down the department.
The leftists are very good at using the mob. They actually train mob agitators. I remember when I was a student at the City College of New York in the late 1940s how the communists organized a student strike over a professor they didn’t like, and the students marched around like sheep, mesmerized by the self-appointed student leaders who were all communists and trained in the arts of agitprop.
The “protesters” at the Inauguration Parade were a leftist rent-a-mob. There’s an outfit in Philadelphia that professionally organizes mob demonstrations. They have to be well organized if they are going to make their impact on the 6 o’clock or 11 o’clock news. They need signs, slogans, transportation, food, lodging, etc. The leftists do it up brown because that’s their m?tier, their profession, and they know how to make use of the TV cameras. No cameras, no mobs. Conservatives make lousy mobs, but they can make the rounds of their legislators in a civilized way to influence their actions. But when the right-to-lifers demonstrated on Jan. 22 in Washington, they got TV coverage because the demonstration was large, colorful and orderly, and President Bush had just cancelled U.S.-taxpayer funding for abortions in foreign countries.
Not all compromise is dialectic. There are many instances in which compromise is warranted. But compromise is not warranted where it violates a conservative’s stand on biblical absolutes. George Bush Sr. turned his promise to a lie by reneging on his pledge not to raise taxes. That compromise lost him much conservative support and lost him a second term. He listened to his Harvard dialectician, Richard Darman, who believed that the purpose of government was to move the nation forward — not saying what was meant by forward.
Of course, the dialectic doesn’t always work in the leftists favor. Thus, their philosophy calls for taking one step back, whenever necessary, in order to later take two steps forward. In dress parades, the Red Army in China actually takes two steps forward and one step back, demonstrating the communist dialectic at work. I’m sure that Clinton and his Gramscian buddies are not at all fazed by having to take the one step back with Bush’s election, because in their hearts they are certain that the next big dialectical move will be two steps forward.
In political terms, the dialectic conflict is between two visions of government: the original vision of the founding fathers of a representative republic with a Constitution that limits the power of government at all levels, and the leftist vision of a social democracy in which government power is unlimited. A constitutional republic is better than a social democracy because it protects us from the tyranny of men. Since the agenda of a Gore presidency would have just about destroyed our constitutional republic, the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court decided to use their power to prevent Gore from overturning the Bush victory. They checkmated the dialectic.