The media has labeled certain politics as left and others as the right. But what is left and right and does the media label each correctly or is their labeling a part of their obvious disinformation?
First, let's make sure we are all on the same page. Consider the political scale as a 10-inch ruler with 5 inches the middle. We will start on the right with zero inches and the far left as 10 inches.
The political scale starts from total government control of all citizens, 10 inches. This type of government would include monarchies and dictatorships, either total control through communism, control by the masses, or fascism, total control through business and industry, they are both still about total control. The far right would be zero inches and anarchy or no government, that is the far right.
The US Constitution is not far right, it advocates control through the rule of law. On our ruler, this would appear as maybe 2-3 inches. The constitution provides just enough governmental authority so the government can protect citizens and their property from within and from without. It is this protection that enables freedom. If a society were under anarchy each person would have to protect their own life and property with NO HELP! Therefore no real freedom to do what you want.
Far left could be exampled by the nationalization of industry and banking like the automobile industry as in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and during Obama's Presidency. It could be exampled by the nationalization of education and healthcare as both Hitler, Stalin, and Obama all did.
But many in the media call what President Trump is doing far right. I see nothing he is, has been, or plans to do that may lead to anarchy. Anarchy would only result from the overthrow of US government and society. Since anarchy cannot be maintained, far left totalitarian dictatorship quickly takes over, historically. So the goal of wanting anarchy is for your dictator to become the supreme leader, typically a far left leader.
It seems many in US society are very mixed up. For example, let's consider freedom. Why is the US a free society? I am sure some will say because the government guarantees it. Ignorant of history are we? Throughout the last short history, say 5000 years, it is governments, including the US government, that TAKES freedoms from their citizens, not the other way around.
Let's try again, from where do US citizens get their freedom? Some may say from the courts. However, US courts have systematically RESTRICTED citizen's freedoms, not guaranteed them.
Let's try again, from where do US citizens get their freedoms? The US Constitution, should you take the time to read it, says our freedoms are granted by God. The Founding Fathers had just fought a civil war against their government, the British government, we call the Revolutionary War, to guarantee we had these rights.
The British government was and is a Parliamentary Monarchy. Why? One King was so authoritarian that the landed people, the Lords, and Nobles, forced the King of England to sign the Magna Carta, limiting the King's authority. This was the FIRST time in history where the people recognized that the far left form of government, total control by one, could be bad. The new Parliamentary Monarchy was maybe 7-8 inches on our ruler, still a lot of government control. It is this form of government from which we rebelled.
The US Founding Fathers knew this British history and they did NOT want a Democracy. A Democracy is ruled by the majority. If the majority of people decided you were not fit to have your children, then they could vote for it and then take your children. If a majority of people decided that the rich should share some or even all their wealth with the rest, vote together, then they could just take all the wealth of that person, who would no longer be rich. If the majority decided black people should be hanged, then they would collect them up and hang them. BTW: this was actually done by the far left KKK just a century ago by Democratic vote within their group applied to those outside their group. The KKK obviously wanted to be the only ones in control.
Larger governments were all Oligarchies, rule by the few. Monarchs of larger countries had their advisors, as did and do all dictators. So an ideal government needs to be big enough so the "few" are not too few. But it also needs to be small enough that it does not take freedoms from citizens, maybe 2 to 3 inches on our ruler. Oh yeah, kind of like the US Constitution originally did.
Our Founding Fathers also understood that the vote must be limited. One, at this agrarian economic period, had to be a landowner to vote, had to have "skin in the game" so to speak. The Magna Carta also was only signed by the landed aristocracy. Otherwise, as was pointed out by Ancient Athens' thinkers, citizens would learn they could just vote funds from the government treasury. Oh yes, they have already learned to do this, it is voting Democratic and getting a welfare check. This only occurred AFTER legislators began to be elected by popular democratic vote instead of through the electoral college, the buffer between the masses and good government. So now the candidate who promises to take money from those who have it and give to those who don't are effectively buying votes by offering government funds, taken from others, to buy those votes. This promise has names like "soak the rich" and "social justice".
So our Founding Fathers formed a Republic, thus we have rule by a few. But that few were divided. The legislature into the House and the Senate. Then they further separated the powers and authority, of this government into 3 divisions, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. Why?
The purpose was and is to limit the power and authority of any one person or group within the government. But then what if one part of this government gets too much power. For example, FDR threatened to "Pack the Courts" to force the Supreme Court to make decisions the way he wanted. His party was in control of both Legislative Houses. So basically FDR became our US Constitutional Dictator with a large group of advisors, both houses of Congress and the courts.
This is what was happening all over the world, historically. England had their PM who had total control, Stalin had total control in Russia, Mao began consolidating his control in China, Hitler in Germany, Musulani in Italy, Hito in Japan, so why not FDR in the US.
In a sense, WWII could be thought of as consolidation of all world power under one dictator or ruler, also a logical step in social evolution. One group of very controlling dictators on one side, the Axis Powers, and another group of less controlling dictators on the other. Had the Axis Powers won, I have no doubt Hitler would have emerged as THE Dictator. But the less controlling side of dictators won and no one emerged as THE Dictator. Stalin wanted to but was originally one of the Axis Dictators and therefore not able to be considered for that reason.
Well, have you figured out how the US maintains its citizen's freedom? If you said the 2nd Amendment, you got it right. Japan and Germany were both afraid to invade the US because of its armed citizens. But the US government is afraid to overly control and take away citizen's freedoms because so many citizens are armed. How can disarming citizens be done?
First, teach a couple of generations of citizens that the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed, the government will provide protection (From itself?). Diluting the effect of the 2nd Amendment by making citizens register their guns and limit the kind of weapon citizens may have and teach them this REASONABLE would be a good first step.
But legally the 2nd Amendment can only be removed in one of two ways, another amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment or another Constitutional Convention. There is no way citizens will permit the repeal of the 2nd Amendment directly, however, that can and is being pushed as a ploy, a distraction by a few of the left.
The real effort must come in the form of a Constitutional Convention under the guise of "fixing" what is broken. Our US Government has moved our nation from 2-3 inches on our ruler to about 5-6 inches. But, those who actually have studied the US Constitution know the problem is the misinterpretation of the original and the diluting of its intent is the reason we have lost so many freedoms and are now 5-6 inches on our ruler. So we do not need a new Constitution, we just need to follow the one we have and go back to 2-3 inches on our ruler. So why the push for a new Constitutional Convention? Certainly not for a more limited government. This is an important point! If we want a more limited government, we just need to follow our original US Constitution. So a Constitutional Convention must be to create an even bigger government much farther left on our ruler, maybe to 8 or even 10 inches.
The purpose of a new Constitutional Convention is nothing less than the legal overthrow of the United States of America. Some say it will be limited to - whatever. However, historically the last Constitutional Convention was limited in its authority to fix the Articles, but then they scraped the entire Articles of Confederation and started over, NOT WITHIN THEIR MANDATED AUTHORITY! But they did anyway and we have the new, wonderful, and brilliant US Constitution. BTW, the reason the Articles did not work was that it was too far right, not enough government, maybe 1 inch on our ruler.
What will a new Constitution look like? How about one that is more like China's or Russia's? What would be stopping them? Obviously, a new constitution will not reduce the power and authority of government, just following the original constitution would do that.
So ask yourself WHO would be willing to be a delegate? Who decides who will be a delegate? Will it be popular people, like Rosanne or Opera? Will it be political leaders, like Pelosi or Reid? Will it be everyday people who cannot afford to go like you or me? I understand Soros is willing to take care of that problem. Everyday people can go because Soros has offered to pay all expenses for anyone who goes as long as they rewrite the constitution the way he wants. Then there are anarchists like Hogg who would be willing to be a delegate. So please tell me who decides again?
Just some food for thought.