With Autocratic Governments, Little Distinction Between Left and Right

By Rorik Strindberg

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

President George Washington may have made the most influential act in the history of America. His decision to step down as president after two terms is a display of selflessness and insight. His own interest must have told him to stay in power. He could say, “I won this country independence, who can lead this nation better then I?” Tying his self-interest into that of the nation and also playing a guilt trip on others. Hinting that the people are in debt to him, for their new found freedom. That very same argument is made by Dictators, Despots and Autocrats all across the world. Could we imagine Robert Mugabe doing the same in Zimbabwe? Mugabe, after leading a war of independence, has run his nation in to the ground. In a recent edition of Frontline, a journalist snuck in to Zimbabwe. The only way the journalists were allowed into Zimbabwe is by lying to the government. The journalist told the government that they were filming the wildlife in Zimbabwe. The Images were horrific, people rummaging through garbage alongside baboons. Sometimes I wonder if Washington wad not had the selflessness and insight that he possessed, would I also be rummaging through the garbage?

Sometimes I find it very confusing to differentiate between Leftists and Righties. Communism has blurred the line between the two today. Communism added the support of certain social programs to Liberalism. This change in the definition of Liberalism has made Modern Liberalism the polar opposite of the Liberalism of the Athenians, and thinkers like Hobbes, Lock and Adam Smith. The cry for less reliance on the government and freedom, which are intertwined, has given way to protection and eventually less freedom. This is true because democracy has never been achieved without capitalism. But it is impossible over time to create capitalism, and prevent Democracy. Note the authoritarian capitalist regimes like Greece, Taiwan or South Korea, which have eventually become democratic.

A clearer rubric for determining ones bias would be the value of freedom. In the 19th and early 20th centuries this was the rubric, hence the strong distinction between Classic Liberals and Modern Liberals. The more political and economic freedom that all individuals have the more liberal the government, the less the more conservative. This creates a clear picture of the governments of the world. Putin and Chavez, under this rubric, are conservatives.
By today’s standards, Imperial Germany would be considered Liberal. In 1871, Imperial Germany was the first state that allowed universal male suffrage. Although this might be deceptive, the Keiser had the ability to elect the Prime Minister. So, what did the universal male suffrage matter, when the King elected the government? Imperial Germany, at the time, had a large social safety net, also high farm tariffs to protect jobs. During WWI, Social Democrats made up the majority of the elected members of the Reichstag. Any conclusion that one would draw about the state is that the government protected and gave rights to their citizens enough to make them docile, wile the ruling elite controlled the real power. Many of the anti-Liberal states today remind one much of Imperial Germany. For example, Iran has elections, but the non-elected twelve men Guardian Counsel has the ability to veto any law and disqualify anybody from seeking office. In their elections last year 44% of the candidates were disqualified. Also, laws that Iran pass are anything but liberal, the banning of western music, classical and other, and an increasing crack down on free press. Putin, while elected himself, in the wake of the Beslan school massacre has canceled the election of governs of the regions that make up the Russian Federation.

Popularism and Despotism is a natural pair. The difference between different Popularism and Despotic regimes around the world is that culture determines how the government appeals to the people. What works in Iran dose not in Russia or Venezuela. Putin’s popularism depends on strength and Russian Nationalism; many note that his hard-line stance on Chechnya and law and order image won him the office of President. Yeltsin helped his advance by appointing him to Prime Minister in December 31, 1999. Allowing him to run with the distinct advantage of being an incumbent. Chavez's popularism is different, Classic Latin American popularize. Chavez blames the rich and external influences for all of the ills of Latin America. Chavez vows to protect the poor from both as long as they support him. In Iran, Islamic Fundamentalism and Persian Nationalism are what keep this undesirable government in power. Iran's nuclear ambitions are defiantly a ploy of Persian Nationalism. Another similarity of these governments is that the line between government and business is blurred.

Although I am a strong proponent of individual freedoms, I realize that there are downsides to freedom. A free individual makes decisions and has to live with the consequences. In reality the individual has nobody to blame but himself, although this is rarely realized. It is my own personal belief that freedom is better than paternalism. I would rather have the freedom to fall on my face, than to be protected by my government at the expense of freedom.