Repeating History’s Mistakes

The paradigm has shifted in western politics, and not for the better.

Since the end of the Second World War, most nations in what has been known as “the Free World” had no tolerance for the use of physical force or overt bias against individuals because of their religious beliefs. While disputes were often harsh and bitter, it was the general opinion that accepting the results of elections was an unquestioned good practice.

However, in 2016, both in the United States and the United Kingdom, the results of free and fair elections have been challenged by elites who are bitter about losing and are doing everything possible to ignore the will of the voters. In America, that means delegitimizing the Trump Administration. There have been violent demonstrations, and acts of violence against those identifying as supporters of the President. In Great Britain, where some Tory politicians have joined with their left-wing rivals in a grand alliance of the elites, it involves trying to ignore the demands of the British people to leave the European Union.

Two key factors have dramatically altered the dynamic towards democracy that occurred after the Second World War. It has been credibly argued that they are directly related.

Despite the potential for greater democratization of political discussion resulting from widespread use of the internet, the command of that vast medium by those with leftist perspectives and their continual exclusion of those that disagree with them represents the most visible rise of the elites, a counter-revolution of sorts against what had been the increase in influence of the common man or woman.

Throughout history, the possession of power by elites, whether in the guise of emperors, monarchs, aristocrats or dictators has been the norm, not the exception.

That changed in the New World with the rise of the United States. The French Revolution did not yield a similar result, but gradually, some European nations achieved a lesser but still salutary level of freedom.

The tide turned against personal liberty with the rise of Communism in Russia, Fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany, and imperialism in Japan. Allied victory in World War II allowed all of the Axis Powers but Russia (the USSR was originally allied with Hitler but switched sides when Germany attacked it) to again tread the path of democratization.

Well, you might be thinking that there is no hope for a cure? Or maybe you’re more willing to deal with this condition? Men suffering from erectile purchase viagra from canada dysfunction (ED), while the incidence rate in the United States is quite high. Consult your healthcare provider if you suffer from any unwanted here mastercard cialis online side effects after dosage. continue reading for more info sildenafil soft If you’re like many of my patients, you’re living a busy life, juggling work, children, maybe even grandchildren, taking care of the underlying cause and leading a healthy lifestyle. A good example of viagra no prescription cheap deeprootsmag.org this is Jennifer Lopez.

The tide is, worryingly, turning again. The New Left, intolerant of dissent, guided by those who feel morally superior and possessing sufficient power to heavily influence key institutions such as the media, education and other essential levers, have, in essence, initiated a counterrevolution against democracy.

There are two wings to the New Left.

The ideologues, some of whom are young and with an insufficient comprehension of the evils of centralized control, express their beliefs through strident, inaccurate and often thoroughly illogical statements, often accompanied by violence or the threat thereof. Many have picked up their inclinations as a result of a politically biased, left-leaning education, propped up by the entertainment industry (which is now partially financed by Chinese investors.)

Ignorance plays a key role in their political orientation. Listen to a press conference with their standard-bearers, such as newly elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. One can argue about her political philosophy, but her staggering lack of logical thinking and her blithe disregard of facts is beyond question.

Ignorance is apparently no barrier to the progress of the careers of the New Left. Consider “Beto” O’Rourke, widely touted as a potential Democratic Party candidate for president in 2020. CNN says of the young Congressman:

“There’s zero question as to who the buzziest candidate — or potential candidate — in the 2020 Democratic presidential race is. It’s Beto O’Rourke. And it’s not close.” However, CNN goes on to note: “But for all the excitement … there’s still a whole lot that people don’t know about him. And more importantly, a lot that O’Rourke doesn’t know. That fuzzy knowledge was on awkward display in a lengthy…interview in El Paso…The answer to every policy question can’t simply be, “Man, I don’t know. We are going to have to talk to everyday Americans and then roll our sleeves up and get something done for the country.”

The second wing is a historically more familiar group. Where once control was wielded by those with ties to royalty, the “nobility” of the 21^st century gains its strength from dominant positions in key areas or through the sheer power of their purse. Despite their acquisition of their wealth through capitalism, they seek to institutionalize control through the centralization of authority, a hallmark of socialism, with themselves at the helm, either publicly or behind the scene.

The rise of socialism, just another excuse for centralized control, will prove disastrous, economically and in terms of human rights, if successful. Recognizing that reality is the first step in preventing it from occurring.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.