THE LIBTARD'S CONUNDRUM

     The term, conservative used to imply a cautious person, deliberative, with a respect for tradition and social norms. Republicans have long bragged about their conservatism while disparaging their Democratic opponents. As in most things political, these comparisons were exaggerated. Neither party has been successful in fulfilling their promises, though the Democrats have had some notable success in social and human rights since the last half of the twentieth century. And some unrecognized success in economics. Republicans started admirably in the last half of the nineteenth century to extend the blessings of democracy to all Americans (except for native Americans), but have fallen in that commitment in recent decades. For most of this time both parties were lead by people of intelligence who discouraged radical moves within each party. I may not have agreed with those intelligent people, but their party did not appear to be an existential threat to those of us on the opposite side.

     Something happened after the election of our first black president, Barack Obama, in 2008. The white nationalist wing of the Republican party went crazy with rage. Without a shred of irony, they blamed President Obama for dividing our country along racial lines. They allied themselves with the corporate lobby, and the Christian zealots; all strongly Republican, to form the Tea-party, which led to the presidential run of Donald Trump. The adults in the party were cast aside and the crazies, which had remained barely visible since the McCarthy era, became the new face of Republicanism. They had ceased to be conservative in the classical sense, and had become rightwing radicals, the fulfillment of Nixon's "southern strategy". 

     Social media, which had been infiltrated by groups appealing to low-information voters, became a bulletin board for people printing lies and half-truths. Traditional media outlets, who had a long record of journalism, published under their own names, had won awards for journalism, and were concerned with reporting; not spreading propaganda, were now called by Donald Trump, "fake news". The insurgent on-line press which had existed on the fringes, were now the go-to sources of information. Often it was not clear where the information those sources printed originated. 

     These new media savants now used the word libtard to indicate liberals or anything to the left of their accepted belief system. LIBTARD, a contraction of liberal and retard. It does no good to explain to them that liberals have throughout history been the benefactors of such noble pursuits as democracy, innocent until proven guilty, trial by a jury of their peers, racial inclusion, and other now accepted ideas. We advocate for ideas that are just beyond the experience of most people, thus we must be prepared to defend our not yet accepted beliefs. That defense requires a process of inquiry, of thought and examination, processes not common in those who are satisfied to just believe what they are used to experiencing. 

     The same people who use that term "libtard", as an epithet, are unembarrassed by their own ignorance, proudly proclaiming the peposterous: democrats are liberals (some are, most are not), liberals are socialist, socialists are communist, communists are Marxist. It means nothing that most of these people would not know the writing of Karl Marx, from the words of Groucho. That they are unlikely to know the names of Frederich Hyack and Ludwig Mises, the fathers of the Austrian Free-market economics which Republicans have long espoused. History, beyond the time of WWII, is also not well known. Nuance is unrecognized: capitalism is king. Whether that capitalism is beneficial or Vulture Capitalism. The success of Democratic-socialism in this country after the New Deal, as well as other countries such as Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, go unrecognized, the go-to example for these people for socialism is Venezuela, an authoritarian socialist kleptocracy. That we are a Republic with a Constitutional Democracy goes unrecognized to them. Science too, is besmirched by these people who question such concepts as evolution and climate change. They are merely "theories" to these people who fail to understand that theory is the end of a process of inquiry beginning with a hypothesis, and which has managed to emerge unscathed. 

     Why should we care about what the ignorant believe? Why not just ignore them? Because they are the clan (klan) who support the presidency of a man who knows little else but how to manipulate

people. Because their ignorance will effect not just our nation but the entire world. Because they are an existential threat to democracy. Because the man who leads their cult is in turn manipulated by authoritarian despots such as Vladimir Putin, and that he inspires other authoritarian despots around the world. That a fundamental undemocratic economy may be in our future, driven by people who have no agenda but their own wealth.

     Most of us, including politicians of both parties, have no clear understanding of macro-economics. Those who do are too boring to get elected. What little we can be confident of is that there is a history and evidence of success or failure. In this respect, 

Free-market economics has failed repeatedly. Democratic socialism has a pretty good success record in countries that remain democratic, in spite of the concerns from the right. It is theoretical, yes. Theoretical meaning the hypothesis has been tested and the result has not yet been disproved. Republicans hang on to the belief that that theory will some day be disproved.