Labels Matter

If we are going to name things and people, let's be accurate about it

Fascist, socialist, communist, oh my. Discourse today revolves around the use of assorted isms and phobias, often spewed with no idea of what the words actually mean to paint the target as someone whose views are illegitimate or a person to be feared. If it was not actually happening, it might be comical to hear stories of people accuse a person of being a fascist while supporting efforts to have that person removed from the ballot, imprisoned for offenses almost no one is ever charged with, or murdered. Well, attempted murder. Twice.  

Likewise, many discussions that center on the economic isms – socialism in particular – eventually devolve into the claim that we are already socialists and the presence of cops, firefighters, road crews, and schools is proof of that. It is hard to reason with low-resolution thought that puts common taxpayer-funded services on a par with a centrally planned economy where govt owns the factories, land, and economic production. Calm discourse is impossible when people parrot words just because their preferred media source told them to. Which brings us to the matter at hand.

The people at the Mises Institute recently published an article refuting the idea that Kamala Harris is a communist. The paper argues that she is something much worse. The term used is interventionist, which is not a new word though this application of it is one I had not heard before. Usually, interventionism means the US govt meddling in the affairs of another state, trying to dictate who can and cannot lead that state, and often using military might to make the point.

Here, interventionism speaks to a cabal of political officials who use the coercive power of govt to manipulate a market economy to their benefit. Interventionism can push a society toward socialism because the negative outcomes of intervention exacerbate existing problems, creating a feedback loop of lather, rinse, repeat. The aim, however, is not socialism. In the Mises version, interventionism is predicated on a political class that knows best and is unable or unwilling to ever admit to error and correct course accordingly.

People like this are far more likely to double down on what has already failed, which makes a lot of skeptics (like me) start to think that failure is the goal. Failure as in the masses suffer greatly, quality of life is steadily eroded, but the elected and politically connected amass untold wealth. There will not be a push toward either socialism or communism because there is too much money to be made by all of the important people. Govt directing the actions of the business community speaks to yet another ism but without the nationalist implications, which we’ll come to shortly.

The idea of pain for the masses and massive pleasure for the limited few drove the Covid experience and an unprecedented upward transfer of wealth. Millions of small businesses were forced to close while the big boxes stayed open. A form of opium was provided to the passes by keeping liquor stores, weed dispensaries, and porn shops open while padlocking churches and outdoor spaces.

This phenomenon is resurfacing through a United Nations initiative called the Pact for the Future, which reads like a globalist’s fantasy novel. A body largely made possible by the American taxpayer but elected by and accountable to no one dabbles in Utopian ideas that will “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.” Where to go with this combination of vague and loaded language?

Global order is clear enough. It speaks of hostility for national borders, culture, and nationalism itself. The parts about this order being sustainable, just, and peaceful are the usual bumper sticker jargon associated with activism whose goal is perpetuating real and imagined issues, not solving them. The concept of multilateralism is a 50-cent rhetorical flourish that reduces the citizen to a subject, with global governance being the polite way of declaring a desire to end national sovereignty.

When physicist turned investor and financial executive Eric Weinstein goes on a podcast and muses out loud that “I don’t know if Trump will be allowed to become president,” stop and consider the dual ramifications of that statement. First, the concept of "allowed" in what is supposed to be a constitutional republic with free and open elections. Second, that there would be a group dedicated to preventing a candidate from assuming office upon winning.

Having failed to keep him off the ballot, to imprison him, and thus far, to kill him, the forces to which Weinstein alludes soldier on. There are reports, including this one from Congressman Matt Gaetz, about multiple assassination plots involving both domestic and foreign actors. It is the sort of stuff one might expect in an over-the-top spy thriller, yet here we are. Gaetz says Homeland Security is aware of all of them. I have no way of knowing if this is real or not, but when has this sort of talk occurred in our history? Moreover, when has this sort of talk been treated by much of the political establishment with an air of casual disregard?

Someone like Trump is an existential threat to the interventionist way of doing business. He is not committed to the scam of the few profiting at the expense of the many. Harris is committed. She is part of an administration that has willingly flouted the normal rules and conventions, daring anyone to do something about it. Despite Harris’ claims that her values have not changed, it’s the absence of principles that is more worrisome. A genuine communist would not be playing footsie with the bankers, defense industry, pharma, and tech giants.

The malicious truth is that she is neither smart enough nor committed enough to be a communist. Harris is, however, a cunning operator and anyone underestimating her may want to take notice that she has gotten this far. Kamala willingly went along with the charade of pretending Biden was competent until she was told to stop. Her new persona is that of someone new to the scene and the people aligned behind her are working feverishly to memory hole her involvement. In this act, she will pledge to fix what’s wrong before one audience while telling the next group what a godsend this administration has been.

Harris’ political history and her rhetoric are peppered with ideas usually limited to the far-left corners of an Ivy League university’s faculty lounge, ideas held by people who would never expect to live under their preferred policies. Her self-interest lies in being self-serving and doing the bidding of what we know as the establishment. Far from being a change agent who will alter the course of the republic, she is part of a cabal bent on maintaining the current heading, the rocks up ahead be damned.