Ten Myths About Socialism

Bernie Sanders
(Nigel Perry/New York Magazine)

Without a doubt, socialism is one of the most slandered ideologies in the United States. It's commonplace for people to accuse policies they don't like of being socialist when it's clear that they don't even know what the term means. Now that Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, is running for president and even gaining on Hillary Clinton in the polls for the Democratic primary, it's as good a time as any to dispel some common myths about socialism. In no particular order, here are ten commonly believed "facts" about socialism that just aren't true.

Redistribution of wealth is socialism.
While socialism does necessitate redistribution of wealth, given that it's about putting resources into common ownership, by no means does that mean that any and all redistribution of wealth is socialist. The main idea behind socialism is that the people as a whole, rather than a small elite, should own and democratically manage the resources within a society, so it's inaccurate to describe a system as socialist just because it attempts to redistribute wealth. In the 1930's, the prominent populist Huey Long was planning to run for president (before he was shot) with a plan he called "Share Our Wealth," which proposed a one hundred percent tax rate on top earners. Socialists like Norman Thomas (the perennial candidate for the Socialist Party) attacked Huey Long's program, because Long claimed it would make socialism unnecessary. So just because someone wants to redistribute wealth by no means makes them a socialist.

Socialism is a big government ideology.
Despite the talk about "big-government socialism," as if socialism and big government go hand in hand, socialists' attitude toward the government is widely varied. Some want to get rid of it altogether (most anarchists, in fact, are socialists). Karl Marx, probably the most famous socialist in history and the man whose name is basically synonymous with socialism in many places, had a complex attitude toward the government, wanting to democratize it and eliminate some of its coercive elements (such as a standing army) so it could be used as a tool to transform society, but believing after that transformation was complete, the government would be obsolete, leading to a stateless society. Other socialists take a less radical approach, such as Bernie Sanders, who believes in making the government more democratic and less corporate-influenced, and expanding social welfare programs. While this does mean the government is "bigger" in some sense, Sanders (and many other socialists) also support eliminating programs like the NSA surveillance dragnet, because they see them as intrusive on individual rights. So even socialists who support the government running social welfare programs don't see "big government" as being some worthy goal, they simply think the government can do some good if it adopts the right approach.

Socialism is atheistic and/or anti-religion.
While some socialists, such as Marx, hold a negative view of religion, others are religious themselves; Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party of America's six-time presidential candidate, was also a Presbyterian minister. In fact, enough socialists have been Christian that Christian socialism is recognized as its own branch of socialism. There are other religious branches as well, such as Islamic socialism and Buddhist socialism. For many socialists, far from being opposed to it, religion is the justification for their socialism.

Only cranks and nutjobs support socialism. 
The right wing in particular would like to give people the impression that if you support socialism, you're either crazy, jealous of rich people, or some leech who won't go out and get a job. The facts don't support this. Not only are socialist parties exceedingly common in other countries, often as major parties (just look at this list of political parties that are members of Socialist International), widely admired historical figures like George Orwell and Martin Luther King, Jr. voiced support for socialist policies.

Socialism is un-American 
This idea is barely worth addressing, since un-American is basically just an epithet to be used against anything one doesn't like. But it's pretty hard to maintain that socialism could be un-American when one looks at all the Americans who have been socialists. Along with King--whom we have a national holiday for--there's Francis Bellamy, who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance; there's Helen Keller, who has been featured on a postage stamp and the Alabama state quarter; and, while Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet "Common Sense" helped start the American Revolution, didn't identify himself as a socialist (the term didn't really even exist while he was alive), he seems pretty socialist when you look at his actual ideas.

Socialism is based on "from each according to ability, to each according to need"
While this is more reasonable than many other myths about socialism, it's also wrong. The key tenet of socialism is that the people as a whole should democratically control the resources of society, rather than a capitalist class. Communism, as Marx promoted, operates on the principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" and while communism is certainly one form of socialism, it's by no means the only one; other systems reward people based on the amount of work they've done, and socialism like Bernie Sanders espouses mostly just aims to ensure everyone gets enough to have a decent living standard and not have to live in poverty.
 
Socialism doesn't work.
Bernie Sanders's brand of socialism, social democracy, is currently the system of the Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, which are all countries that are ranked as having some of the highest standards of living on Earth. As for the more radical varieties of socialism, while they haven't been given too many opportunities to prove themselves, they've generally performed admirably. Take, for instance, during the Spanish revolution, when many areas were controlled by anarchists and socialists; rather than everyone becoming lazy, as is supposed to happen under socialism, productivity went up significantly, and, rather than collapsing by themselves, these areas had to be conquered by force in order to end the successful socialist experiment.

Socialism is undemocratic.
While I've heard plenty of people contrast democracy and socialism, and libertarian capitalist guru Milton Friedman claimed that capitalism was a necessary prerequisite for democracy, the idea of socialism as being incompatible with democracy is the literal opposite of the truth. Rather, socialism is based on subjecting the resources within society to democratic control, meaning it is an extension of democracy. In fact, without at least some degree of public control of a society's resources, any democracy would have to be considered incomplete. After all, it's of limited importance who we elect if they're not even able to ensure we have the necessary resources to live a decent life.

Communist countries represent socialism in action.
Despite the fact that, of course, Communist countries claim to be socialist, actual socialists tend to disagree. George Orwell, for instance, commented that "Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism." Noam Chomsky agrees with this critique, calling the idea of the Soviet Union as being socialist a "mammoth lie." In Communist countries, the state runs the economy, but this doesn't equate to socialism. As Friedrich Engels notes, "if [any state ownership] is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism." While Communist countries openly proclaim themselves to be socialist, they also claim to democratic and run for the benefit of the people, which are claims that we all can agree are false. The claims of the USSR (back when it existed) and other countries in its mold of being socialist are about as honest as the routine claims made by the US government that it's spreading democracy and freedom across the world.

And for the final myth:

President Obama is a socialist.
While I haven't heard it so much recently (though I don't doubt it's still routinely claimed in certain circles), it used to be popular among right-wingers to call Obama a socialist. This is pretty reminiscent of the situation in France that Karl Marx wrote about in this passage: 

Whether it was a question of the right of petition or the tax on wine, freedom of the press or free trade, the clubs or the municipal charter, protection of personal liberty or regulation of the state budget, the watchword constantly recurs, the theme remains always the same, the verdict is ever ready and invariably reads: "Socialism!" Even bourgeois liberalism is declared socialistic, bourgeois enlightenment socialistic, bourgeois financial reform socialistic. It was socialistic to build a railway where a canal already existed, and it was socialistic to defend oneself with a cane when one was attacked with a rapier. 

Norman Thomas said about the allegations of socialism against FDR: "there is nothing Socialist about trying to regulate or reform Wall Street...There is nothing Socialist about trying to break up great holding companies...There is no socialism at all about taking over all the banks which fell in Uncle Sam's lap, putting them on their feet again, and turning them back to the bankers to see if they can bring them once more to ruin." And Obama is no FDR. Probably the most liberal piece of major legislation he's signed, his healthcare law, keeps in place private health insurance companies and gives them taxpayer dollars to do the job they should have already been doing--providing health insurance. While it's nonetheless an improvement on the previous system, it's far from socialism, just like everything else he's done. In fact, he's avoided anything even remotely socialist even when the opportunity was ripe; he came in when we were facing an economic meltdown, and the economy is still as privately controlled as ever.

I will emphasize, in closing, that this is not a complete list. More lies and nonsense have been spread about socialism than almost any other ideology in America, and it would likely take an entire book to cover them all. But these are some of the biggest and most pervasive myths about socialism that I've heard, and while I'm no position to single-handedly erase them from the public consciousness, hopefully this post can do some small amount of good in that area.

The GOP Debate: A Spectacle of Depravity

Scott Olson/Getty Images

The first Republican debate of the primary season, held several days ago, illustrates very well why I barely bother to address the right wing in America. The utter detachment from reality that's increasingly happened among so-called conservatives in America and particularly within the Republican Party is so self-evident (or at least should be) that commenting on it feels superfluous. Accordingly, I'll simply be presenting here, in no particular order, several moments or aspects of the debate that illustrate how thoroughly, and disturbingly, the right wing in America has removed itself from rationality, sanity, and human decency. I won't bother to comment on each of the listed items one by one--they speak for themselves.

• Ted Cruz wants a president like Egypt's dictator. Ted Cruz openly praised the "courage" of Egypt's al-Sisi, whose regime has massacred protestors, detained political opponents, and received harsh criticism from  human rights agencies. Cruz applauded him for "call[ing] out" radical Islam. 

• Mike Huckabee's comments on the military. Mike Huckabee informed us that the purpose of the military is to "kill people and break things." Therefore, in his view, the military should not offer sex-change operations to those in its service. Presumably, he also opposes lifting the ban on transgender people in the military, as that was what he was actually asked about. 

• Scott Walker opposes a mother's life exception for abortion. Scott Walker, one of the more supposedly mainstream candidates, stated that he believes abortion should be illegal in all cases, including when the mother's life is at risk. He called this "a position that's in line with everyday America," despite Megyn Kelly having just stated that eighty-three percent of the American public disagrees with this view.

• Basically everything Donald Trump said and did. Donald Trump boasted about how he'd bought off politicians, expanded on his idea that the Mexican government is actually sending their undesirables here so we can take care of them, called political correctness the "big problem" in the United States, and lashed out at Megyn Kelly for asking him about disparaging comments he'd made about women. 

• Ted Cruz's solution to ISIS. Ted Cruz rejected the idea that jihadism can be combated through "chang[ing] the conditions on the ground so that young men are not in poverty and susceptible to radicalization" as "nonsense." His proposed solution was to make it clear that by taking up jihad against America "you are signing your death warrant." He did not address the fact that jihadists undertake suicide attacks (such as the 9/11 attacks) seemingly unfazed by the prospect of their own mortality. 

• Huckabee wants fertilized eggs to have constitutional rights. Mike Huckabee stated that a sperm and egg become a person entitled to constitutional rights "at the moment of conception." He followed this remark up by commenting that, because the Supreme Court isn't God, the policy set by Roe v. Wade should be changed, presumably unilaterally by the executive branch. 

• Walker attempts to tie Iran and ISIS. Scott Walker commented that the Iran deal that was recently finalized is "not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS. It is tied together." Evidently, he sees some connection between the Shia regime and the radical Sunni militia it's actively fighting against, alongside the United States. 

• Jeb Bush accuses Obama and Clinton of dividing the country every day. Jeb Bush stated that "[w]e’re not going [to] win by doing what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do each and every day. Dividing the country. Saying, creating a grievance kind of environment." 

• Bush blames Obama for ISIS. While calling the the invasion of Iraq a "mistake," Bush also blamed Obama for creating ISIS when he "abandoned Iraq" by following the withdrawal timeline agreed to by Jeb's brother, George W. Bush. 

• Chris Christie attacks Rand Paul. Because of Paul's opposition to bulk collection of phone records by the NSA, Christie stated that he believes we can assign blame to Paul for future terrorist attacks. He also accused Paul of "putting our country at risk" by delaying the renewal of the PATRIOT Act. 

As I stated, each of these items speaks for itself. Frighteningly, Jeb Bush--the brother (not just by blood but by ideology) of the most right-wing president in recent history--came off as a voice of reason compared to many other candidates. John Kasich, the governor of my home state (whose legacy includes attempted union-busting and disenfranchisement of minorities), seemed like a warm-hearted humanitarian. From Trump, Huckabee, and Cruz, there was very much a feeling (in my opinion) of them having tapped into widespread popular discontent and attempting to harness it in very ugly ways, disturbingly reminiscent of fascist movements both in the past and present.

For purely entertainment value, the debate ranks highly. As a look at the high-level candidates vying for the highest office in the most powerful country on Earth, it's surreal in how unnerving it is. The Republican Party has abandoned any resemblance to a normal political party functioning within a parliamentary democracy. One can only hope it's sown the seeds of its own downfall.

A Response to Allen Clifton on Islam

I've written a few posts addressing articles written by Allen Clifton, where I criticized him for basically being a Democratic Party mouthpiece. Here's another rebuttal to one of his articles, but this time with a new twist: this time, I'm criticizing him for spouting right-wing/New Atheist talking points about Islam. That's right, the one area that Allen Clifton chooses to deviate from mainstream liberalism in regards to is Islam, where he's defended Bill Maher's error-filled attacks on the religion and praised that Islamophobe par excellence Sam Harris. To make things better, Allen Clifton is a Christian, which just plasters on another layer of hypocrisy (given the various awful things done in the name of Christianity, including quite recently) to this screed about the problems of Islam. 

Amusingly enough, he chose to call this article "I'm Simply Running Out of Ways to Defend Islam," which says little seeing as I've never seen Allen Clifton defend Islam. It would be a little like if I wrote a blog post called "I'm Simply Running Out of Ways to Defend Capitalism," for instance. His article is to a significant extent a rehash of a piece he wrote after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, which had the exact same title minus one word. I didn't bother responding to that one because I already had my hands full when it came to stupid reactions to the shootings, but this time around Clifton's piece has the good fortune of being one of the first reactions to the recent Chattanooga shooting that I stumbled upon.

Clifton begins:

As I sit here overwhelmed with feelings of frustration and sorrow following yet another tragic shooting in this country, there aren't words to describe my disgust. I refuse to believe that this is the "new normal" for us here in the United States, but it's also hard to deny that these shootings now seem to be happening more frequently.

I'm not sure who's asking him to accept regular mass shootings as the new normal, but aside from that, fair enough. He goes on, "One of the most frustrating aspects of this attack is, yet again, it was perpetrated by an Islamic radical." Frustrating, yes, but largely because it will inevitably lead to articles like this one. That's not to be insensitive to the victims; what happened was, of course, tragic. But my thought upon hearing that the shooter was Muslim was basically that, inevitably, we would just have to hear more of the sort of nonsense Clifton produces in this article.

Clifton goes on to quote from his Facebook post after the shooting, "At some point we have to come to the realization that Islam is a problem. It’s not a coincidence that the vast majority of terrorist attacks committed in the world are done by Islamic extremists." This statement is accurate, at least in terms of fatalities from terrorist attacks, if one only considers non-state terrorism. However, if Allen Clifton wants to actually focus on terrorism as a whole, he'd be well-advised to consider, for instance, Israel's massacre in Gaza a year ago that killed around 1,500 civilians, the drone war the US has engaged in (and whose civilian casualties the government has deliberately obscured), and, of course, the worst war crime of the century thus far, the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US and UK. According to a joint study done by Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival, and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War--highly accredited groups--the US-led War on Terror has left a body count of 1.3 million in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. So, in short, the biggest terrorist threat does not come from the Muslim world.

As for the Islamic extremists Clifton has mentioned, their origin is a little more complicated than some sort of inherent problem in Islam. Rather, they often draw from Wahhabism, a radical (or, more accurately, ultraconservative) form of Islam popularized by Saudi Arabia--a close US ally whose regime we've supported for decades. Then, of course, there was the decision under the Reagan administration to arm the Mujahideen--Muslim fanatics--and organize them to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. Throw in a few more instances of Western interventionism and it becomes a bit easier to see how we got where we are. This isn't to gratuitously blame the West or the US, as Sam Harris might think, or to deny that any other factors came into play. But if Allen Clifton, an American Christian, is going to criticize Islam and talk about Islamic fanatics, he might as well understand how others of his ilk helped create this problem; in the words of his savior, to "first take the plank out of [his] own eye [so as to] see clearly to remove the speck from [his] brother's."

Continuing on in Clifton's diatribe:

I’ll use the South Carolina shooting as an example. While you can’t blame all white people for the act of one vile animal, you also can’t deny that racism is still a very real problem. Well, the same goes with this shooting. While not all Muslims are to be blamed for yet another terrorist attack seemingly carried out in the name of Islam, you also can’t deny that Islam, and the increasing (and growing) radical aspects of it, are very real problems.

This is a profoundly stupid comparison. Saying that racism is a problem does not in any way indict white people who aren't racist; saying Islam is a problem by definition indicts Muslims, given that it's saying that their religion itself is a problem. Being non-religious, and not particularly fond of religion, I'm fine with the idea that Islam is, in some respects, a problem; but it's certainly not fair to try to connect the religion of over a billion people who often overwhelmingly reject this type of violence with the actions of a minority. If, for instance, we were to say that Christianity is a problem given Bush's indication that he invaded Iraq under God's direction and top general William G. Boykin's explicit use of religion to justify the War on Terror, Allen Clifton would probably object, and fairly so.

As badly as I want to stand in the face of some right-wing radical who’s proclaiming that Islam is a violent, hateful religion and tell them that they’re an idiot and nothing but an ignorant jackass – I don’t know if I can say that and still honestly mean it. I used to – without hesitation. I’ve always stood against prejudice, bigotry and intolerance. But with the increasing violence in the Middle East (at the hands of Islamic radicals), Boko Haram slaughtering innocents seemingly every day all across Africa and the increasing number of “lone wolf” attacks we’re seeing carried out throughout the world – how can I honestly sit here, as someone who believes in facts over emotion, and continue to say Islam has nothing to do with it?

This is just another false dichotomy concocted by New Atheists and other Islam-bashers. There's a difference between claiming that something has "nothing to do" with Islam and not pretending that it's representative of Islam as a whole. Certainly, we can say that while Bush and Boykin's actions don't have "nothing to do" with Christianity, they don't represent Christianity as whole; likewise, while the actions of Islamic extremists don't have "nothing to do" with Islam, that doesn't mean that Islam itself (as if it were some monolithic entity) is the problem.

Clifton goes on, "The world is filled with various religions, and some people do in fact carry out horrific acts in the name of religions other than Islam. But it’s undeniable that the vast majority of terrorist attacks - for decades - have been linked to Islam." Again, wrong. Going back decades just allows us to find even more examples of non-Muslim terrorism, such as the Reagan administration's treatment of Central America.

So, what’s the “solution”? To be honest, I’m not sure if there is one. The only thing I can think of is Muslim leaders, and non-violent Muslims around the world (hundreds of millions of them), are going to have to start taking a bigger stand against these attacks. Simply condemning them publicly isn’t working, nor is it enough. (!) We need Muslim nations to take the lead against radical Islam – but they’re not doing that. At least not in ways that are making much of a difference.

The "us-and-them" mentality of this paragraph is so strong it's completely absurd. Clifton writes as if Muslims are all some interrelated group, and aren't largely people with their own lives to live. How would Clifton feel, one wonders, if someone told him he needed to counter Christian acts of violence in some way that goes beyond "condemning them publicly"?

And, of course, unsurprisingly, Clifton misses completely the fact that there are a lot of things the United States could do to curb the spread of radical Islam, such as no longer supporting Saudi Arabia, ending the drone war and other policies that destabilize the Middle East, and not backing Israel's aggressions toward Muslim countries and populations.

Muslims have to want – and demand – actual democracy. They have to build nations not ruled by the Quran, but by basic human decency toward everyone regardless of gender, religion or sexual orientation. As long as Muslims continue to flock toward nations founded, built and driven by Islamic rule – none of this is going to stop. Sadly, far too many continue to do just that.

Yes, of course. Muslims just don't want democracy enough. It's not that we've deliberately intervened to prevent democracy in Muslim countries or supported oppressive, dictatorial regimes, it's just that those darn Muslims don't seem to want real democracy. They've really got some soul-searching to do.

And we finish off with:

Before you start calling me anti-Muslim, just understand that I’ve reached a point where I really don’t know where to go or what to say anymore about this subject. It’s hard for me to keep saying “it’s not Islam, it’s just the bad guys” when these sorts of attacks are becoming more and more frequent and are almost always tied to the same religion. When I see videos of hostages being beheaded by ISIL, hear about 145 people killed (including 132 children) in a Pakistan school suicide bombing, read about hostages being murdered in Australia, a satire newspaper where writers were brutally gunned down because of a couple of cartoons, 28 people dying in Tunisia, the continued acts of violence all throughout the Middle East and the countless atrocities carried out by Boko Haram in Africa – all in the name of the same religion – how can I keep defending it from those who spew hatred toward it? I want to, I really do – I’m just not sure if I know how to do it anymore.

If you honestly don't understand how to defend a religion whose adherents widely oppose this sort of violence, you're probably too stupid to be helped. Clifton also conveniently neglects to mention that, by and large, the victims of Islamist terrorism are, in fact, Muslims. And what a good service to the memory of those victims it is to trash their religion and blame it for the very terrorism that killed them!

To reiterate, I have no problem with criticisms of Islam, but criticisms have to actually make sense to have any value, and Clifton's doesn't. It patently doesn't make sense to blame an entire religion for the violence of some of its members when that same violence is condemned by many others--strong majorities in many countries, even.

It's bad enough when atheists spout these absurd criticisms of Islam, but the fact that Clifton doesn't see the hypocrisy in doing it as a Christian is truly ridiculous, given the similar violence done in the name of Christianity (and, of course, the fact that you wouldn't have to look too hard in the Bible to find justifications for that sort of violence). But it's not exactly surprising, given his obvious and blinding ignorance on the topic of Islamic extremism. Truly, whether he's spouting anti-Muslim propaganda or just parroting the Democratic Party line, Allen Clifton brings the same level of insight to all that he discusses.

Thoughts on the 2016 Election

I know it's still early, but clearly the frenzy surrounding the 2016 presidential election has already started. First, I'll briefly note that I think it's ridiculous that election season for the highest office in the country really lasts this long, and I'll also point out how that's true in no other developed country in the world. US presidential campaigns are absurd, overlong circuses that we've become accustomed to because a lot of us don't know any better.

With that out of the way, since election season has started whether I like it or not, I'll go ahead and make some observations so far. We'll start with the Democratic side. We have, firstly (and most prominently), Hillary Clinton. I've pretty thoroughly detailed why I don't like her, and nothing has changed since then to make me like her any better. We've heard some economic populist sort of rhetoric from her, but, unfortunately, there's no reason to believe it's anything but rhetoric. Her record is not that of economic populist, it's that of a corporatist. In the speech launching her campaign, she cited her husband, Bill Clinton and President Obama as good examples of presidents who carried on the legacy of the New Deal and helped create an economy that worked for the middle class. This ignores the fact that the top one percent's share of the national income spiked under Bill Clinton, he repealed New Deal legislation (probably helping to lead to the financial crisis in 2009), and signed a welfare "reform" bill that essentially shredded the social safety net. As for Obama, I've already covered that.

So as I predicted, Hillary 2016 does, in fact, suck. But, interestingly, she has a competitor that has surged in some polls, and may prove more troublesome to her than originally expected. That competitor is, of course, Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont. While I still have my disagreements with Sanders, he's certainly far preferable to Clinton, and does offer a platform that, if enacted, would take some major steps in the right direction, in terms of economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

Predictably, the shills for the Democratic Party mainstream (Allen Clifton, for instance) have offered up a thousand reasons why the Democrats should nominate Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, and even implied he shouldn't be running. Supposedly, he'll weaken Hillary Clinton and make a Republican victory more likely (just like how the fiercely competitive 2008 primaries left Barack Obama weakened and allowed John McCain to win the election, unless I'm remembering that wrong). To them, Hillary's nomination is inevitable--and, to be honest, I still think it's what will happen in all likelihood. But it isn't inevitable, and no one should settle for a candidate like Hillary Clinton, for all the reasons I (along with many more prominent people) have pointed out.

"But he could never win the general election!" Well, yes, he could, if enough people voted for him. Again, I consider Sanders a longshot for the Democratic nomination, but if he manages to win that, it hardly seems impossible that he could win the general election. He does describe himself as a socialist, as noted, but 1.) almost half of Americans say they would be willing to vote for a socialist for president, and 2.) much of Bernie Sanders's platform is widely popular, given the general sentiment that the middle class are being screwed over as Wall Street rakes in huge profits, meaning that some who might have first been unwilling to vote for a socialist could be swayed once they understand what Sanders's socialism actually entails (which is to say, basically the social democratic policies of the Nordic countries).

"But even if he won, he couldn't get anywhere with Congress!" How far has Obama gotten with Congress? Unless the Democrats have majorities in both houses (and probably only if they have a 60+ supermajority in the Senate), no Democrat will be able to get much done. The president has far more power than many people realize, given his ability to take unilateral actions in terms of foreign policy, choose how to enforce the laws, and make appointments to various positions. Were Sanders to get elected, he would almost certainly not be able to do everything he's proposed, but he would still make a far better president than Clinton.

There are a few other candidates for the Democratic nomination, but they're honestly so low-profile that I haven't looked too closely at them, so I'll skip over them. We can then move onto the Republican field which is, well, a total mess. The last number I heard was thirteen candidates, and that's likely to keep going up. They usually include at least fifteen in the polls. There's really not a clear frontrunner, either. If I had to guess, I'd say the nomination will probably go to Jeb Bush or Scott Walker, both of whom are completely terrible. The others aren't much better, with the exception of Rand Paul, who, as I've noted, says some decent things on some issues, but is still pretty awful on a number of other issues.

Mostly, the Republican field is so big and includes so many absurd candidates (Santorum again, Trump for real this time, Jindal, Huckabee) that it promises to be entertaining, though sadly there won't be anywhere near as many debates as there were last time. I don't have much to offer in terms of serious thoughts on the field, other than that it seems to indicate a total disarray and chaos within the Republican Party itself, which is nothing new. Whoever they end up nominating, it will very likely be another right-wing authoritarian corporatist who would ramp up the "national security" state, the war on drugs, and military interventionism.

I will note a serious concern that I have, though. ISIS, even though we haven't been hearing too much about it recently, is still very much a serious issue, and not about to disappear. It seems hard to fathom that it will be gone by that the next president takes office, assuming we continue our strategy of refusing to partner with Iran and Syria in the fight against ISIS and supporting Saudi Arabia as it fights against militants in Yemen who are also engaged in the fight against ISIS. If Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, or Scott Walker get elected, there is real reason to fear that our intervention there will escalate and Iraq War III will go full-blown. We do have the opportunity to make a meaningful choice in this election. And the impact could be enormous.

We're Not So Bad

For all the differences between the devoutly religious and Ayn Rand-type social Darwinists, they seem to have a certain narrative in common: that human nature is selfish, unsympathetic, and downright cold. For the capitalist social Darwinists, this is the justification for sweeping away all sorts of social welfare programs and having an every-man-for-himself style free market--it's only natural, after all. For the fervently religious, it's why people need some kind of divinely sanctioned morality to live by, lest they succumb to their sinister inner nature and care only about themselves.

It's not just these two groups that have this conception, either; the popular consensus really does seem to be that human nature is pretty brutal. For liberals, it's why we need economic regulations. For conservatives, it's why we need to be tough on crime and value deterrence over rehabilitation. Even I've put out a couple blog posts that paint a less-than-glowing image of human nature.

And it's not that this conception is entirely wrong; sure, people can be selfish, cold, brutal, and downright monstrous. We see examples of that all the time in the news, from ISIS to Israel-Palestine to the chilling dispassion of those running large corporations to the lives of their workers and customers. But what we overlook is that we also see people working together for their mutual benefit, and even going out of their way to help others, on a daily basis. Often it's something small--holding the door for another person or letting them switch lanes in front of you in a traffic jam. But it's not insignificant.

And, although I've used the term "social Darwinist," it's really not quite appropriate seeing that Darwin himself called the human capacity for sympathy toward others "the noblest part of our nature." Zoologist and evolutionary theorist Peter Kropotkin also argued that mutual aid is the most important factor in evolution:

Peter Kropotkin (from Wikimedia)

"There is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species; there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defense...Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle."

So it's not just some idealistic idea that the human species has a natural capacity for cooperating and sympathy with one another; rather, those things really are every bit as natural as competition and cruelty.

And, for that matter, people as a general rule do better for themselves when cooperating, rather than competing. That's why workers form unions and businesses form cartels--in each case, they understand it's better to cooperate with each other than to compete. Certainly, competition can drive people to do better; but cooperation actually enables them to do better.

The growing gap between the rich and everyone else can be traced, ultimately, to the fact that it's gotten increasingly easy for the rich to cooperate for their benefit and increasingly hard for everyone else to do so: while banks are allowed to become "too big to fail" and corporate lobbyists often find friends in Congress willing to make a deal with them, workers are forced to compete with each other for jobs without the benefits that unions used to offer. It isn't that the rich have simply come out on top through some grand competition; rather, they've stayed ahead by working together, while everyone else has had to compete with each other.

The point of all of this is that people do cooperate completely of their own accord all the time; so, no, the Hobbesian war of all against all is really not something that happens in real life, under normal circumstances. So the people who want to model the economy on that should understand that what they're proposing is not "natural" anymore than our current economy, or an entirely socialist economy, or any other. The people who are sure that without religion or morality we would all be murdering each other in the streets should ask themselves why, then, there are so many instances of people cooperating for their mutual benefit when morality and religion didn't come into play; or, for that matter, why there are so many examples of altruism among animals when they presumably have neither, at least in the human understanding of the words.

We do have the capacity to establish societies based on cooperation and mutual aid, rather than competition; they are not doomed to fail based on human nature, as so many have asserted. We also have the capacity to continue on our current course, where the few cooperate and the many compete, for the benefit of the former and detriment of the latter. Cooperation will continue either way; but who it will benefit is to be seen. The choice is ours.

Why I Like My Fiancee

Obviously, this is pretty different from my normal blog post, but I want to talk about my fiancee. Granted, for whoever's reading this, this post may be of limited relevance, but it is, after all, my blog--and maybe this post will be of relevance to you in one way or another. Who knows? Anyway, I want to talk about why I like my fiancee.

One of the biggest reasons I like her is because I can have a smart conversation with her, about a variety of topics. We have a lot of common interests, so we have a lot of conversations that would be interesting with anyone, but they're made even better by the fact that they're with the person I love and want to spend the rest of my life with.

Another big reason is that she has a sense of humor. She says a lot of things that I find really funny, and it's always easier for me to like someone if I find them funny. I can't imagine being with anyone without some kind of sense of humor, but thankfully my fiancee not only has one, but has one a lot like mine.

Also very importantly, I can tell she cares a lot about me. She goes out of her way to be nice to me, and always likes to spend time with me. I like my fiancee because I can tell she likes me, and wants the best for me. I want the best for her, too.

A little more superficially, but still worth noting, is that she's beautiful. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, but I can't imagine finding her to be anything but beautiful. Looks aren't everything, or even the important thing, but they don't hurt.

But, honestly, and most importantly, I like her because she's her. Sometimes  you find a person who it just feels right to be with, and for me, she's that. Perhaps, dear reader, that's what you can take away from this--ultimately, when you find the right person, you'll know it, even if it's hard to express. And I do know it.

Who Are the Real Liberals?

Imagine we have two groups of people. We have:

Group A, whose members: cheerfully support right-wing demagogues and people who make extended, friendly appearances on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network; defend ethnic profiling policies; promote the idea that the United States is "enlightened" and morally superior while it engages in pointless, bloody wars and kills people without the benefit of a trial; defend the use of torture; and talk about how some areas of the world need to be ruled by dictators rather than democratic institutions.

Group B, whose members view all of this as disgusting and unconscionable, defend individual rights consistently, and support a society where people are entitled to a certain level of respect as long as they reciprocate that respect.

Which group is more liberal? Laid out like this, the question seems foolish to even ask, but we're told over and over by members of Group A—the New Atheists, that is—they're the real liberals because they oppose Islamofascism, or something along those lines. We've heard it from the usual suspects; from Bill Maher, from Richard Dawkins, and a similar line of rhetoric from Sam Harris, who considers himself a liberal pitted against those unconcerned with the "deeply illiberal" Islamist agenda.

Bill Maher (Image from Wikipedia)

Discussing liberalism is complicated by a few factors. For one thing, right-wing politicians and mouthpieces have taken to using it as a way to attack anything they don't like. For another thing, American "liberals" have often been willing to defend deeply illiberal acts for a long time; President Obama is considered a liberal, and has increased the NSA surveillance state and radically expanded the drone war.

While, for political labels, dictionaries are often of limited use, we might as well start there in determining what liberalism really is. Oxford English Dictionary offers, among other definitions, "Supporting or advocating individual rights, civil liberties, and political and social reform tending towards individual freedom or democracy with little state intervention." This seems to me a pretty good definition; the label does come from the Latin word meaning "free," after all. Understanding liberalism as the advocacy of individual rights, liberal support for the welfare state and a social safety net should be seen not as being on the basis of some desire for an authoritarian government that distributes wealth however it wants to (as right-wing ideologues theorize), but rather a reaction to the fact that poverty and slavery, as philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer noted, are only "two forms...of the same thing." 

Glenn Greenwald (Image from Salon)

By my definition, most of the people who call themselves liberals today would not be real liberals, given that they're often willing to rally behind people like Obama and ignore the troubling, illiberal actions he's taken (and, of course, their frequent fetishizing of government itself, as I previously wrote about). However, there are relatively high-profile liberals, like Glenn Greenwald or Chris Hayes, who I would consider to be good representations of what liberalism really is, or should be.

"But no," say the New Atheists, "these people are apologists for Islamic theocracy, terrorism, etc. We, the New Atheists, really represent liberalism, given our firm commitment to individual rights and our desire to protect them from infringement by Islam." An interesting claim. Certainly, no true liberal could find much to admire in an Islamic theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia. But who, exactly, is defending those theocracies? Where are the liberals who have actually defended Islamic terrorism, for that matter? Glenn Greenwald is, no doubt, a thorn in the side of the New Atheist movement, and exactly the type of person the New Atheists think of as a phony liberal for his stance on Islam. But is there anywhere in anything he's written where he's indicating that he's all right with theocracy, with female genital mutilation, with beheading, with terrorism, with honor killing, or whatever other thing the New Atheists use to try to show us how barbaric Islam is? For that matter, does anyone seriously think that he doesn't view these things as awful?

The New Atheists have created a strawman, the Islam-apologist liberal, who just sees these things and shrugs his shoulders, saying, "Ah, well, it's their culture, who am I to judge?" In reality, if there's anyone out there who thinks like this, they're well hidden. They're certainly not Glenn Greenwald or Chris Hayes or any of the other high-profile people the New Atheists consider phony liberals. The truth is, it's entirely possible, indeed quite easy, to abhor the ugly things done in the name of Islam without acting as if it's some predictable result of the religion itself.

Defenders of Maher, Harris, Dawkins, et al. will often cough up the hackneyed argument that liberals are okay with the Christian right being attacked for its actions, but that they have a double standard when people try to attack Muslim theocrats in the same way, but there's no truth to this. Few liberals who criticize the Christian right say that Christianity itself is the problem; indeed, it's often pointed out how the bigotry and callousness of the Christian right goes against the teachings of the man they profess to worship.

This is the exact opposite of the attitude the New Atheists hold toward Islamic theocracy and terrorism; rather than pointing out how it contradicts parts of the Qur'an or goes against the actual life of Muhammad (which would both be valid points in a number of instances), they say it's because of the Qur'an and Muhammad that we see this sort of violence and theocracy. It's that assertion, and the insinuation that Muslims as a group should be viewed warily, that gets the New Atheists so much criticism, not their opposition to theocracy and violence, which is a completely uncontroversial position to have.

Nor are the "illiberal liberals" the New Atheists love to rant about uncomfortable with actually criticizing theocracy and violence; Greenwald has written that:

Of course one can legitimately criticize Islam without being bigoted or racist. That's self-evident, and nobody is contesting it. And of course there are some Muslim individuals who do heinous things in the name of their religion...Yes, "honor killings" and the suppression of women by some Muslims are heinous...That some Muslims commit atrocities in the name of their religion...is also too self-evident to merit debate

Greenwald has also harshly criticized the government of Saudi Arabia, which is, of course, an Islamic theocracy. So, no, the liberal critics of New Atheism are not uncomfortable with indicting Islamic theocracy and terrorism. They dissent from the New Atheist viewpoint on how this reflects on Islam and Muslims as a group. Thus, the insinuation that they are not "real liberals" because they don't like the New Atheists is nothing but another self-serving lie on the part of the latter.

On the other hand, though, we do have some serious questions to ask about the supposed liberalism of people like Maher, Dawkins, and Harris. Maher and Harris have endorsed the use of ethnic profiling against anyone who "looks Muslim," in obvious violation to the longstanding liberal idea that everyone should be treated equally before the law, regardless of race, religion, etc. All three of them are big fans of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a so-called human rights activist and former politician in the Netherlands. Hirsi Ali worked closely with Geert Wilders, an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, right-wing fanatic who wants to ban the Qur'an and immigration from all Islamic countries to the Netherlands.

Of course, I guess that's not much of a disconcerting fact for the New Atheists; after all, Dawkins has called Wilders "a man of courage, who has the balls to stand up to a monstrous enemy." Hirsi Ali, meanwhile, has made an extended appearance on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network to talk about the dangers of Islam, has referred to it as a "destructive, nihilistic cult of death" and "the new fascism," and has promoted amending the US Bill of Rights to allow anti-Islam legislation.

Then, of course, we have Maher and Harris's eager support of Israel. As usual, they're all too ready to overlook the forty-year-long military occupation the Palestinians have endured and Israel's aggression in the Middle East to claim that somehow the US and Israel have the moral high ground over groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. By doing so, they help give cover for yet another blatantly illiberal policy, this one far worse than their proposed ethnic profiling.

Harris is exceptionally bad; he's defended torture openly, and promoted the installation of "benign dictatorship[s]" in Islamic countries, acknowledging that it would require "crude" means such as "economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both." In fairness, these are Sam Harris's views alone, not Dawkins's or Maher's. But neither of them seems to be dissociating himself from Harris over said views.

So, ultimately, the New Atheist claim to represent real liberalism is yet another complete and utter lie. There is nothing about liberalism that demands you have some particular animosity toward Islam, and it's entirely possible to abhor Islamic theocracy and terrorism without blaming it on Islam, just as it's possible to do with Christian or Jewish theocracy or terrorism (both which do, in fact, exist, contrary to the prevailing narrative that only Muslims still do that sort of thing) without blaming it on Christianity or Judaism. And, in terms of the actual views that separate them from Greenwalds and the Chris Hayeses, Maher, Harris, et al. are anything but liberal. If the New Atheists want to say that liberalism doesn't work in fighting global jihadism (or whatever other catchphrase they want to use), so be it. But they don't have a shred of credibility in claiming to represent "true liberalism" and lecturing others about what that term means.