Rudolph the Red-Nosed Communist

Okay, I thought I was only going to post once on politics before election day 2012 but it appears I was wrong. Specifically, I am dealing with political ethics in this post not politics proper. I will state outright that I will struggle to keep an essay about political ethics both objective and on-topic. It is my firm belief the even good Christians get sucked in way too deeply when it comes to the Right and Left arguments in American politics as stated in my previous post. The unbiblical and progressive types lean liberal in America. These are not stereotypes etched in stone but more often than not this is the way the cards fall.

Unfortunately, the flip side of the coin is the Right that has been hog-tied to the Evangelical base since the 1980’s because of the Christian Coalition, Christian Right and other church/state amalgamations. It has become so bad that those who cannot think for themselves now see evangelical Christian and Republican as interchangeable and in my case, nothing could be farther from the truth. Then we have the Tea Party which is a complete anomaly that neither side fully understands because they don’t seem to fit within the false dichotomy set up by the two-party system in the United States. I adhere to neither side as I now view the American two-party political system as a vast socio-cultural satanic Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). Democracy should work in theory but it wasn’t necessarily meant to be just a two party system. The current social/cultural dialectic is inevitably heading towards a toilet even when we have a Republican in the driver’s seat as most Republicans are actually centrists anyway and centrists are just closet liberals or more properly: Moderate Liberals.

To me, in theory there should be political ethics but I do not believe forms of economic theories are necessarily good methods of governance. This is one of the things people miss totally when the words “socialism” and “communism” get bantered around in society and in the media. First, these are not first and foremost political theories/systems, they are economic theories/systems. It is primarily political systems that utilize these economic ideologies...often times unethically for selfish egotistic needs like getting re-elected and lining one’s pockets. If one looks closely enough they will also see that both sides eventually work towards the same ends. Both pretty much have subscribed to Keynesian economics that has continually mounted debt against the American taxpayer with no intent to pay it off. This is unethical as it places the burden of debt on our children.  To me this debt is unethical because it is unbiblical.

That being said, when we look at Liberal politics we see the underlying premise to be Marxist in origin or leans heavily towards Socialism which is the means of production (and education) is controlled by the State. The truth is that in some cases the Government is actually now closer to outright Communism or Fascism. In the end this path leads to the human becoming a number and when the might juggernaut of Marxist philosophies begins to act it does so in uniquely twisted Marxist utilitarian way that seeks to do the most for the most people but does it in a way that benefits the Mother Country.

The irony of Communism and socialist theories is that it can be traced back to the work of 16th century English writer Thomas More and his work Utopia (1516). Which ironically was a story written about a fictional land and named the way it was because of the following reason.  In the Greek the word οὐ or U means "not". The word τόπος means "place". The suffix -iā is typical Greek ending for a place name. So what we have is a word construction that means: No-place-land or more properly understood…a place that really does not exist. A name Thomas More gave to the ideal and imaginary island nation. So if we follow my logic in sequence the Liberal mind finds socialism the preferred political system (if not outright communism or fascism if given their way). This theory or premise finds its roots in an imaginary island that does not (or cannot) exist. The Liberal/Progressive mindset therefore believes in something similar to The Island of Misfit Toys on Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

At the other end of the spectrum are Libertarians who appear (in there very extreme condition) nearly just as dangerous to biblical morality and biblical premises as the communists as they flirt on the line with anarchy or social disorder and moral ambiguity. As a matter of fact, in some of Libertarianism’s more radical permutations, “freethinkers” and anarchy are actually condoned. Freethinkers being people who believe that there isn’t evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena (i.e.: atheists, non-theists)

Sadly, many Christians are jumping on board with the Libertarians not realizing they are making deal with the Devil when they do so with the more activist of this persuasion. To avoid the looming "Red Threat" they swing like a pendulum all the way back in the other direction. Moderation is the key folks, even our parents told us that. Too much of one thing is never good...everything in moderation. They do so because of a knee-jerk reaction to abuses of power in the two-party system. At the core of the Libertarian philosophy may be economically conservative principles but they have extreme socially liberal views. These socially liberal views do not dovetail nicely with Biblical principles. What we end up seeing is that in the core of the Libertarian philosophy is an egocentric isolationist.

What is interesting about libertarianism as opposed to Marxist theory is that it is not an economic system per se but an actual philosophical/ethical system.  Of course the more one reads about Libertarianism the more one is hard-pressed to actually apply the moniker “ethical” (in its proper morally upright meaning) to this philosophy. As stated on Wikipedia, prominent Libertarian historian George Woodcock has said that libertarianism is: “A philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution.” Sorry, this isn’t biblical either (Romans 13)…unless of course you are a Social Gospel adherent or Liberation Theology heretic reading you Bible improperly. Sadly, what I fail to see in any descriptions of Libertarianism (as with Marxist philosophies) is any positive mention of God. What I see instead is a conspicuous absence of positive allusion to the Almighty. As a matter of fact, both of these systems at the base of their philosophy deliberately try to kill God off by superseding Him with the powers of man through the State in one shape or form. Without God, there can be no true ethos in man. In these systems, man has supplanted God. This is my belief why, in the end, they will be failures. It is also the reason I have divested myself of my political baggage and other meaningless earthly political paraphernalia. I will affect a change in this world through the Gospel and the teaching from and of Jesus Christ. Time has born witness to the fact that the systems of man are doomed to dust heaps of history. This will be the end result of all the current political systems including the ones in the United States. In the end, God allowed for kingly rule and governance but they were only poor imitations of the Real Thing.