THE CASE FOR PRACTICAL IDEALISM

Here at the COTO crew, I've tried to stay above the fray as other members duked out the arguments for and against socialism. There's even been someone here who advocated a one-world government, which seems out-of-place because the COTO crew tends to fight against the NWO - the New World Order.

But as long as we're having articles like 'The Case for Socialism,' I thought I might put up my own article that cracks open the egg for practical idealism.

It seems there's always this or that "ism" that one can ponder and turn over in the mind (or hash over on the internet) the strengths and weaknesses of it.

This can be true as we can have lots of discussion and back-and-forth about it. I believe that Ghandi was suggesting practical idealism. I believe that plenty of Americans have spoken of practical idealism as a general outlook, approach, or attitude towards life.

But guess what? --In U.S. presidential politics, nobody ran on a platform of "practical idealism" until I did, as an independent candidate in 1984. That means that I've got my own "ism," being the first to give it shape and definition in the arena of U.S. presidential politics.

One can do the research to understand that I was first, or simply note that a 1984 newspaper article said of me, "Here he was, discussing politics, coining the term 'practical idealism'..." (published in the New Haven Journal-Courier, August 9, 1984)

Above, a news writer credited me with coining the term (although I caution that we can only say so within the limited frame of reference of U.S. presidential campaigns - as noted above, I think the term had common usage, and Ghandian usage, before I applied it).

That allows me to say, "neener neener neener" to Al Gore and Condoleeza Rice, both of whom subsequently tried to call their programs "practical idealism." Heck, they were in power; they tried to turn practical idealism into a fad; and, their efforts flopped -- they didn't stick. History saved saved my chair at the table. I continue to give definition to practical idealism.

In my usage of it, practical idealism was meant to encourage America (at first, and then China) to reach for improvements. It was intended to be America-compatible, embracing the ownership of private property and the rule of law, and rejecting anarchy.

So, for the United States, it's not supposed to be a drastic, radical departure. In the case of China, yes it would be a drastic, radical departure.

America has swung too far into corporatist government, crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and the double standards that accompany elitist plutocracy. Practical idealism would curb the excesses and level the playing field.

In 1984, it suggested such things as "We need new energy sources" (hydrogen, fusion, and solar power satellites), "The budget must be balanced," and "Taxes must be fair." America needs sustainability and fair play. But, the campaign was in opposition to the reelection of Ronald Reagan -- so, we can say that practical idealism stood to un-install Reaganomics, a/k/a supply side economics, a/k/a voodoo economics or trickle-down economics.

If Reaganomics were uninstalled, we would be back to America as it existed in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. That's not the end of capitalism; America had plenty of capitalism in those decades. Those were decades when America also had a growing middle class, and the benefit of reforms (such as Glass-Stegal) that had reined in Wall Street after the Great Depression. America had all of the social safety net reforms from the New Deal. President Johnson tried to launch a war on poverty; that was underway, until Reagan stopped it.

The growing middle class had it's highest purchasing power around 1968-69. In those days, the minimum wage had higher purchasing power than today. And, the gap between CEO pay and the pay of rank-in-file workers was much smaller than it is now.

I believe that all of the above is still possible, and without repealing capitalism, nor any basics of America.

What needs to be un-installed is Reaganomics, Boomernomics (or call that Clintonomics, or the neo-liberal trade agenda), and Looternomics (what we've seen under George W. Bush and Barack Obama). We are suffering from all three at the same time at present.

As far as I'm concerned, in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the private sector was free to do its thing (within some higher standards), and I'm not anti-private sector.

I do think that banking and insurance are largely sociopathic business models; and therefore, these fields should be subject to some public competition. The government could easily run its own reference-standard bank and insurance company (within limits). It would be a good thing if that came about, but I would also be willing to artificially limit those ventures to (say) 5 million customers. This would serve the purpose of setting standards without crowding out the private sector, or taking away too much market share from them.

My purpose in the above would be to set some human standards in the public interest, and to curb the sociopathic excesses of those business models as currently practiced.

Tariffs would be raised to reverse the off-shoring of jobs in industrial production. Minimum wage would be raised, and the social safety net repaired so as to be functional.

But really, these fixes are tinkering at the edges. There's no abolition of private property, private enterprise, or free markets. To me, practical idealism is not about redistributing wealth, but rather, it's about taking the previously-proven American model (as in the 50s, 60s, and 70s) and restoring that to good health.

Practical idealism would introduce a series of systemic improvements in the form of constitutional amendments. Those would stop the buying and selling of political seats (remove the influence of big money from politics), impose term limits for officeholders, require clean elections, and tighten up our practices about conflict of interest and corruption.

Two more reforms would be to require "loser pays" in civil litigation, and to stop the private issuance of money as now happens through bank credit and the federal reserve.

But, in contrast to a communist, socialist, or anarchist revolution, these reforms are tinkering at the edges. Under practical idealism, we won't abolish private property or the Constitution in the US.

And a one-world government? Is a bad idea.