Neither Prepper nor Faithful Sheep

The false dichotomy is one of the favorite rhetorical tricks of those in the American left.  We are told people must either love Obama as a great leader or secretly hate him because he is black, or that people must either approve of homosexuality fully and joyously or condemn it as a sin, or that people must either favor state control of the health care professions and industries or want their fellow citizens to suffer without access to health care, and so on.  Sad to say, there seem to be enough people with poor enough analytic skills that they often get away with it.

 

We get another example from the traditional financial media – the false dichotomy between  fully trusting the establishment’s politicians,bureaucrats,  and financiers and becoming a whacked out “prepper” who thinks civilization or at least the world’s economy is about to collapse.  Every false dichotomy hides something and diverts attention from other real possibilities and options. In this case it allows writers serving the establishment to avoid both serious questions about how competent and trustworthy those politicians, bureaucrats,  and financiers really are and serious reasons why people might want to  take a few precautions and acquire a little insurance against trouble even without believing crazily in a coming  economic apocalypse.

The recent financial crisis and the reactions to it from both Republicans and Democrats should  be enough to justify some skepticism about the competence of the politicians, bureaucrats, and financiers, irrespective of worries about a total collapse.  And since it is fairly obvious that we now have the most dangerous, aggressive, mendacious, and anti-growth government since at least the 1970’s, there should be some doubts about its trustworthiness quite apart from any apocalyptic concerns.

As to taking precautions, one does not have to believe civilization is about to end to see value in storing  some food. All one has to do is notice that storms, labor problems, or government policies and decrees can disrupt deliveries of food to grocery stores. One does not have to believe the dollar is about to become worthless to see value in holding a portion of one’s assets in precious metals. All one has to do is notice that governments around the world are on a binge of printing money,  that all major currencies in the world are fiat currencies, and that under present political condition holding some of one’s wealth in an anonymous and hard to trace form might not be a bad idea. One does not have to believe the civil order will collapse or the government will become totalitarian to see value in being armed. All one has to do is notice that there are criminals  out there who want to do others harm and that an armed citizenry is the surest defense against  any government’s tending toward tyranny. One does not have to be a prepper to see value in being prepared for trouble. All one has to do is notice that trouble sometimes comes and be willing to act on that information.

  

Thatcher and Mandela

Margaret Thatcher died this year at the age of 87. She was the first woman to head the elected government of a major European nation, serving as prime minister from 1979 to 1990. She played a major role in history and her actions were immensely beneficial to both her own country and the United States. In Great Britain she reversed many of the post-WWII trends policies which were turning that once prosperous and great nation into the sick man of Western Europe and set it on paths to recovery and prosperity. In foreign affairs she came into office at a time when the Soviet Union was advancing around the world, and the United States and its allies were losing the Cold War. The Soviets’ nuclear and other forces were growing stronger, while those of the United States and its allies remained static or grew weaker.   Many influential leaders of the foreign policy establishment on both sides of the Atlantic argued that the United States needed to accommodate itself to Soviet superiority and domination of Europe and accept second place status in the world. Almost all of them believed  the Soviet Union to be a stable, dynamic,  and  economically vigorous empire and considered  the notion of defeating the Soviets and liberating its conquered nations to be an absurd fantasy.  The facts of course turned out differently. Within a little more than a decade, the Cold War and its threat of nuclear war ended, the Soviet empire collapsed in total defeat, the nations of east central Europe were liberated, and much of the Soviet Union itself was partitioned from Russia into a number of smaller states – all without bloodshed.  It was a world historical triumph which finally ended the 20^th Century European nightmare that began in 1914 and created opportunities for a more stable, peaceful, and prosperous Europe and world.  Ronald Reagan was the main force behind this remarkable reversal of fortune in the world, and Margaret Thatcher was his strongest and most influential ally. She deserves a significant amount of the credit for making it happen, and as such did more  to help the United States than any foreign leader since Winston Churchill.

Yet when she died, the administration of Barack Obama churlishly failed to acknowledge her accomplishments or significance (or to bother with her funeral), and lots of Obama’s ideological allies seemed mainly to celebrate the fact that she was finally dead.  

  

Nelson Mandela died a few days ago at the age of 95. He was president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. Some military strategists considered South Africa to have some strategic importance during the Cold War because of its position at the junction of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, but events in the country generally have had little effect on the United States. Before becoming president, Mandela was a leader of a revolutionary movement opposing the Boers’ apartheid regime.  Apartheid was a policy of forced racial segregation, denial of civil and voting rights to non-whites including the right to travel freely,  and harsh suppression of opposition from any source. It deserved the contempt and condemnation it received around the world. Mandela was involved to some degree with violent efforts to overthrow the government and is said to have joined the Communist party for a while. He was arrested and charged with trying to overthrow the government through violence. He spent over twenty years in prison, much  of that time in harsh conditions. The Boers eventually realized that they could not continue apartheid and released Mandela and other prisoners.  Mandela became president and presided over the dismantling of apartheid.  South Africa did not collapse into either the barbarism of Central Africa or the Marxist disaster of Zimbabwe, and Mandela deserves credit for that. It was a significant accomplishment. He ignored his socialist ideology and did not nationalize any industries or companies, and he opposed plans for oppressing the whites, even the ones who had been active in the oppressive former government. South Africa became a corrupt, crime ridden country with bitter and often violent tribal and racial conflicts, but one far more successful than most of the rest of Africa.  

To call it a real success  or to claim what happens in South Africa is important to the United States would require setting  the bar very low. That, however, is the essence of affirmative action, and likely a reason the Obama administration and its supporters in the traditional media  are serving up hagiography and treating this as an almost cosmic event. The other main reason is probably affinity for Mandela's ideology.  The contrast with their dismissive behavior when Thatcher died is interesting and telling.