The Power of Language
The power of language to transform the way we think cannot be overstated. A great book, an extraordinary speech, filled with symbols and words that indicate concern for one’s fellow humans, can go a long way towards changing hearts and minds. This last sentence, for instance, implies that we think or feel with our hearts. We don’t. But, we know what's meant, regardless, even if it is in no way true. In fact, in many ways, the idea that we act according to what’s in our heart may sound profound, but is nothing more than a metaphor for acting on our deeply held beliefs.
Hitler had deeply held beliefs. So do members of ISIS. ISIS is a fine example of people acting on their beliefs. Their beliefs are so deeply held they’re willing to die, and frequently do, in an effort to turn their beliefs into reality. In that sense, most devout Christians or Jews, even other Muslims, pale by comparison. If belief or conviction determined reality, ISIS would rule the world.
Hitler almost did conquer the world, aided and abetted by the faith that Germans had in their leader. So great was their belief, they made Hitler a dictator, who was answerable to no one, but his own convictions. As Hitler began to consolidate power, the German people turned a blind eye to his actions and ignored the warning signs which were everywhere. Hitler had even written a book before becoming Germany’s chancellor, detailing his views. Still, few paid attention, because they, like Hitler, had convictions.
In that sense, all belief is little more than something we choose to accept as true, often with the scantest evidence. If there was sufficient evidence to support our beliefs, they wouldn’t be beliefs, they’d be facts. There is very little in the real world which can be called factual, however—and for the simplest reason; because there is simply too much to know, for anyone one person, or even a thousand of the greatest minds to begin to grasp. We can never know anymore than a tiny fraction of the possible knowledge available. Nonetheless, we tend to place faith in our leaders in the hopes that they can solve our problems. This is precisely the opposite of an American form of democracy, which assumes that the individual is far better suited to solving their personal problems than some faceless bureaucrat in Washington.
I recently read a well written piece by a fellow jazz musician who articulately made the case for a universal income. He said that this was the consensus of intelligent people, who, apparently, knew. I could have asked what would likely happen if people were suddenly guaranteed an income? Would they work and save? Some would. Maybe most. But, even a look at very recent history makes it clear that a sizable portion of the population would become permanent wards of the state.
From 1965—and for next 30 years—America had just such a program called welfare. It targeted the poorest of the poor, which tended to be single, unmarried women with children. And, within a single generation, the number of children born into families with no father in the household exploded, especially among African Americans. They were, after all, the poorest of America’s poor. Rather than seeing the obvious, progressives blamed slavery as the cause of this sudden dilemma.
Directly following the civil war—and for years afterward—African Americans had two parent families at about the same rate as Whites. Following president Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs, and even before, during FDR’s expansion of the welfare state, those numbers grew. By 1965 they were about 25% of the Black population, about ten times the rate for Whites. Today, the number of children born into single parent families is 73% for Blacks, over 50% for Hispanics, and at nearly 30% for Whites. This would not have been possible if the consequence for having children out of wedlock hadn't been circumvented by benevolent politicians. The welfare state may have been well intended, but it was profoundly destructive, especially for the very people it sought to help.
Welfare as it existed for decades ended when a democratic president, Bill Clinton, and a republican congress under the leadership of Newt Gingrich passed a bi-partisan bill. The hand ringing and threats of hungry children running aimlessly through the streets like packs of feral dogs, never materialized, much to the chagrin of progressives everywhere.
It should be obvious that a new call for a universal income is not really new. But it still remains a wonderful sounding idea, even if there is no evidence to support it. There is an abundance of faith, though. And those who choose to believe, in spite of the lack of evidence to support their beliefs, are deeply convicted nonetheless, which says more about their need to believe in their own good intentions, than it does about the truthfulness of their beliefs.
Mark Magula
Hitler had deeply held beliefs. So do members of ISIS. ISIS is a fine example of people acting on their beliefs. Their beliefs are so deeply held they’re willing to die, and frequently do, in an effort to turn their beliefs into reality. In that sense, most devout Christians or Jews, even other Muslims, pale by comparison. If belief or conviction determined reality, ISIS would rule the world.
Hitler almost did conquer the world, aided and abetted by the faith that Germans had in their leader. So great was their belief, they made Hitler a dictator, who was answerable to no one, but his own convictions. As Hitler began to consolidate power, the German people turned a blind eye to his actions and ignored the warning signs which were everywhere. Hitler had even written a book before becoming Germany’s chancellor, detailing his views. Still, few paid attention, because they, like Hitler, had convictions.
In that sense, all belief is little more than something we choose to accept as true, often with the scantest evidence. If there was sufficient evidence to support our beliefs, they wouldn’t be beliefs, they’d be facts. There is very little in the real world which can be called factual, however—and for the simplest reason; because there is simply too much to know, for anyone one person, or even a thousand of the greatest minds to begin to grasp. We can never know anymore than a tiny fraction of the possible knowledge available. Nonetheless, we tend to place faith in our leaders in the hopes that they can solve our problems. This is precisely the opposite of an American form of democracy, which assumes that the individual is far better suited to solving their personal problems than some faceless bureaucrat in Washington.
I recently read a well written piece by a fellow jazz musician who articulately made the case for a universal income. He said that this was the consensus of intelligent people, who, apparently, knew. I could have asked what would likely happen if people were suddenly guaranteed an income? Would they work and save? Some would. Maybe most. But, even a look at very recent history makes it clear that a sizable portion of the population would become permanent wards of the state.
From 1965—and for next 30 years—America had just such a program called welfare. It targeted the poorest of the poor, which tended to be single, unmarried women with children. And, within a single generation, the number of children born into families with no father in the household exploded, especially among African Americans. They were, after all, the poorest of America’s poor. Rather than seeing the obvious, progressives blamed slavery as the cause of this sudden dilemma.
Directly following the civil war—and for years afterward—African Americans had two parent families at about the same rate as Whites. Following president Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs, and even before, during FDR’s expansion of the welfare state, those numbers grew. By 1965 they were about 25% of the Black population, about ten times the rate for Whites. Today, the number of children born into single parent families is 73% for Blacks, over 50% for Hispanics, and at nearly 30% for Whites. This would not have been possible if the consequence for having children out of wedlock hadn't been circumvented by benevolent politicians. The welfare state may have been well intended, but it was profoundly destructive, especially for the very people it sought to help.
Welfare as it existed for decades ended when a democratic president, Bill Clinton, and a republican congress under the leadership of Newt Gingrich passed a bi-partisan bill. The hand ringing and threats of hungry children running aimlessly through the streets like packs of feral dogs, never materialized, much to the chagrin of progressives everywhere.
It should be obvious that a new call for a universal income is not really new. But it still remains a wonderful sounding idea, even if there is no evidence to support it. There is an abundance of faith, though. And those who choose to believe, in spite of the lack of evidence to support their beliefs, are deeply convicted nonetheless, which says more about their need to believe in their own good intentions, than it does about the truthfulness of their beliefs.
Mark Magula