Victim, Oppressor, Savior

by Tom Wise

The Hegelian dialectic is the most important element in politics. Whether you are running for office, or just interested in what’s going on, you will encounter Hegel on a constant basis, and your success or failure will be based not only on whether you understand the dialectic but also how you interface with it.

Having dramatically opened, let’s look at Hegelian dialectic with simplicity. Basically, it is setting up two straw men positions (one called “thesis” and the other called “antithesis”) with the intent to reach a third goal (called the “synthesis”). By pitting thesis against antithesis, a “revolution” takes place. This revolution is the most direct route to the synthesis.

Let’s look at a true-life example. Last night on MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell “interviewed” Herman Cain. O’Donnell asked “questions” relating to Cain’s personal involvement in 1960’s civil rights activism and the Vietnam War. If you saw any part of this, you are painfully aware of the cynicism and manipulation attached to all of O’Donnell’s queries. His goal was not to gather the truth, nor can I say that it was meant to do much of anything except elicit a response... any response. There was in play already a synthesis, an outcome, and this became clear the next day on the same network, as O’Donnell held a long panel discussion with Al Sharpton and two other black commentators of less note. It took only one or two minutes to deduce that no person involved in this discussion would be defending Cain. You might say, “Of course, because the entire fracas is propaganda.” Very good – but incomplete. If this is your sole response, you have only protected your own senses. The Hegelian dialectic has not been addressed.

The first straw man (it matters not if we call it thesis or antithesis) is that Herman Cain as presidential candidate must answer for every movement he ever made and every word he ever uttered. This is set up in a number of ways. First, it is assumed that being a presidential candidate carries such requirement. Sez who? Second, it is assumed that the press has the right to ask any question. So what if they do? Questions do not always have to be answered. Third, it is assumed that if the media becomes hostile to you by your reluctance to answer their questions your campaign will be dead in the water. Since candidates in the past have overcome no or negative press, it would seem that such an historical basis is demolished; yet every election cycle politicians attend to this same fallacy as if they were just hatched yesterday.

Now, how did Herman Cain address this first straw man? He answered most questions, but not all. His refusal to participate in several instances was actually quite vocal. He predicated these responses on premises stated, and forcefully pushed back when he felt erroneous foundation had been laid. In sum, he did an adequate job in meeting the Hegelian dialectic, not giving it too much power.

The second straw man is that Herman Cain as a black Republican conservative businessman is an oxymoron. It is by this assumed that something is “wrong” with Cain. As a black man, his conservatism must be a type of aberration, and his Republicanism must be due to some defect in his decision-making process. Ergo, he is a wild man and cannot be President.

How did Cain handle that second straw man? In essence, he rebuked it but still managed to keep some honorable sense of humor. Concerning his decision to sit out the civil rights sit-ins, he made his point that, although his heart was always with his people, he had other fish to fry. Concerning his military service in the area of ballistics, Cain gave a blistering reply that amounted to “war is not always about getting shot at.” Nevertheless, no perspective on his responses is actually important here, since whatever Cain said in reality would be ignored. The main facet of interest is in determining how the Hegelian dialectic affected Cain. In this case, O’Donnell was able to land several glancing blows and perhaps even a stiff jab or two, the pain of reaction evident in Cain’s demeanor.

Lawrence O’Donnell’s reactions to Cain’s frank replies were ludicrous and hilarious. Here was a white man grilling a black man on his American struggle, and giving him guff for it. If it were any harsher from O’Donnell, one would have to say it appeared as if a master whipping an uppity slave. But even more absurd was the peacenik O’Donnell chiding Cain for not having the guts to volunteer for the swamps of Vietnam, as if O’Donnell gives a hoot in hell for anything but a decent sound bite with which to beat Cain further.

The day after this hooliganism passing itself off as journalism, during the aforementioned round-table with Sharpton et. al., O’Donnell noted that at no time during his interrogation did he ever give the impression that he was against Herman Cain’s life choices! Let’s check the videotape... wrong!! Shocking? Hardly. The Hegelian dialectic demands only that Cain participated, and that O’Donnell ignore his own contradictions in order to reach the synthesis. But it is ponderous how any honest person who saw O’Donnell’s performance the night before could stand to hear even one more word the next day. This is the triumph of Hegel – that people are too lazy, ignorant, or uncaring to qualify and hold responsible those who would disseminate information.

Herman Cain was given only two choices: (1) answer the questions and be ripped to shreds, or (2) don’t answer the questions and be tagged as “evasive” or “secretive.” That Cain did not play that game maximally speaks well to his understanding of such situations (important should he have opportunity to stare down the communists). However, this did not stop Lawrence O’Donnell and gang from building for themselves a narrative from which further narratives would be built. To watch the delight on their faces as they constructed opinions of Cain based on their twisted analysis of him as a man is to understand Hegel and therefore Karl Marx. There was never any doubt in which manner the esteemed panel would behave the next day. The synthesis (“Herman Cain is a sellout against his own people, and no black person ought to vote for him”) was pre-arranged.

Why would Herman Cain agree to such torment? It appears he has a bit more courage than he let on, for it takes nerve to intentionally enter the lair of the enemy. It would be an oversimplification to say that he needs all the attention he can get (even though his appearance on Dick Morris’ Internet show is eye-opening). We can point to Cain’s own observation that his “name recognition” is not yet top-tier. Thus, by permitting himself to be bruised, he attended to the truism that negative attention is better than no attention. Yet, closer to the truth, I believe Cain had an idea to peel away black voters from the Democrats, even in the face of Hegelian onslaught. Perhaps he thought a fair percentage was a good payoff for stepping in the ring. Here, I can only fault him for being oblivious to the fact that MSNBC has appalling ratings, but I can’t scold him for trying. Cain was almost certainly aware that his appearance would make for days of hay on the struggling network.

Now let’s look at Lawrence O’Donnell’s behavior more closely. It is evident that the game for such avowed communists was and always will be “Victim-Oppressor-Savior.” This, as we’ve learned, is the Marxist strategy to all success. It involves identifying a “victim” segment large enough to provide a power base, whether that be through votes or insurrection. Next comes the “oppressor” who has disenfranchised, polarized, or otherwise made unhappy the victim group. Finally, the “savior” is the one with the answers, providing relief either by empathy or by policy. In the O’Donnell-Cain match-up, Cain is the oppressor, black people are the victims, and O’Donnell is the savior.

Cain was painted by O’Donnell as a weasel (didn’t serve his country “correctly”), a kiss-ass (didn’t complain enough when for race reasons he was rejected from his college of first choice), and a coward (didn’t put his life on the line for racial equality). This sets up the dialectic that Cain’s success (money, power, status) is a type of “reward” from the white man. Thus, Cain is an “oppressor” of black people by the mere fact that he exists (in the same manner that Sarah Palin is an oppressor of women by her feisty existence).

Cain is supposedly a slap in the African-American face (naturally, this does not apply to liberal rap mogul Russell Simmons). His capitalism (a crime in itself) mixed with his unapologetic and vocal esteem for America makes him not only ignorant but also dangerous against all progress for black civil liberties. Many (such as O’Donnell and Sharpton) are “offended” not only for themselves but for every black person who ever suffered an indignity. As incoherent as that may sound to reasonable people, there is a substantial audience for such drivel, and these are the “victims” to whom liberals, progressives, and communists afford their services. The fact that progressives and communists perpetually continue along these lines means that such media strategy really works. And since it does, Herman Cain was correct in saying that blacks and Democrats in general have been “brainwashed.”

O’Donnell, by his fierce and unrelenting struggle to worm the truth out of Cain is the “savior” of all these unfortunates. Why, if he hadn’t had the cojones to push Cain up against the wall, all those poor black folk mighta voted for Cain. And then what? Well, there would certainly be too much talk from the mouth of a black man about personal responsibility and achievement based on merit. We can’t have that now, can we? That would be too much for those victims to handle. Cain is dangerous to their self-esteem. Actually, Cain is dangerous to those who have set themselves up as the saviors of the black community, more so by the very fact that Cain is black.

You want to talk about an end to racism in America? Picture a successful black man bringing the United States back from a deep recession and terrible governance. Why is that a problem for O’Donnell? Not for the obvious reason, that Cain is a Republican and that it must be a Democrat who saves the nation. Not at all. The real reason is that O’Donnell and his ilk do not want to save America. For them, Obama is doing just a dandy job of splintering unity, destroying capitalism, and ignoring all sorts of criminal activity from illegal immigration to Attorney General Holder. Oh sure, maybe they’d like some further gay rights on top of that, and possibly those drone strikes are just a bit too warlike for the liberal-cum-communist public relations image, but all in all Obama is their man.

Herman Cain, however, is a problem for them. You see, the white man can be prodded by guilt and fear. Look what happened to John McCain in 2008. But Cain has nothing about which to feel guilty. Yet, with superhuman fervor, O’Donnell the "savior" was on the case over Cain's military enlistment status and any slightest aspersions against Rosa Parks, wasn't he? The "Perry Mason" of tele-journalism had him cornered! Grandly, Cain didn’t fall for it. Nevertheless, it didn’t stop O’Donnell from the next day acting as if he caught Cain with pants down. The Hegelian dialectic goes on regardless!

I hope you now have a better idea concerning the use of Hegel in politics. It is passive-aggressiveness on display. It is imputing guilt where there is none in order to further revolution to a synthesis. Basically, if you engage with them, you are at their mercy. The more you deny their lies, the stronger they seem to become. Since their goal is not truth, logic and reason is useless against them. They have no standards or shame. Their only aim is to reach the synthesis. With communists, that means the end of capitalism, individualism, and private property. Keep that in mind always.

One possible solution for anyone involved in politics or political discussion is simply to agree with these Hegelians, and with such an exaggerated mannerism that all sound bites become worthless. It reminds me of something Jesus said: “Agree quickly with your enemy, while you are in the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be thrown into prison, and you won’t be set free until you’ve paid your last penny” (Matthew 5:25-26).

This does not mean we surrender to Hegelian dialectic, but that we treat it as the insanity it is. However, we cannot ignore the dialectic, for it is everywhere: government, education, media, even in our personal lives. It is dangerous and will likely never be extinguished. Wherever is a disgruntled mob, there will be a strong figure to emerge and speak the words that all free people dread: “Revolution Now.” If we do not recognize and ourselves fight against actual and true oppression of the weak (as Torah commands), we will surely meet this false “savior of the people” over and over again.