Socialism, Social Ethics and Political Contingency

Apart from creating strawmen and immediately referencing the poorest nations that are deemed economically left-wing, the main criticism I’ve heard recently regarding leftist policies is attacks on those that make the arguments. As if an argument that murder is wrong coming from Jeffrey Dahmer would somehow defeat it. It’s either fallacious reasoning or the majority of conservative ideologues are simply more focused on figure heads than ideas. But since conservatives want to do very little in terms of policy, and what policies they propose is massively unpopular they have little else but obfuscation, romanticism and deferring to the age old tactics of religion to entice the people to vote against their economic interests and civil rights.
The most ready example is Alex Jones and his ilk mocking Bernie Sanders mostly in childish ways. Their most persistent criticism is essentially: Bernie Sanders is Socialist yet owns things! When has Bernie Sanders, who is the poorest senate member, said he is against ownership of one or multiple homes? If Bernie Sanders was wealthier he would pay the higher taxes he proposes for the mega-rich. There is no inconsistency in being wealthy, which again he isn’t by the standards of the rest of the corrupt goons in Washington, and promoting the wealthy pay more in taxes to help others. Just as there is no contradiction in being healthy and promoting universal healthcare even if in the short-term it would cost him or her more in taxes if they are wealthy. In the future it could very well benefit them like it does every citizen of almost every other developed nation on the globe, and even if they never require medical services the fact it helps lives other than his or her own is incentive enough to promote what is right.
An additional level of shamelessness and stupidity is added on the fact that most of these people who promote the conditions of plutocrats continuing their lavish lifestyles are Christians. They mock Socialists for not adhering to a social ethic most Socialists have never professed – while this very social ethic is touted by their alleged savior who they claim to take example of before all others. This of course often fails to be presented in their actions which is a result of either not understanding their own faith (ignorance) or degrees of moral failing in having one’s will be in accordance with what one believes is right. Although most moral philosophers excuse wrong action that is down out of ignorance (Plato being the most ready example) when one both claims advocacy of something and also refuses to be educated on the thing they advocate when they had ample time and access to resources ignorance is no longer excusable and instead is tantamount to a character that is more focused on zealotry than education; more concerned with entrenchment of party lines than education.
There are worthwhile arguments to be made against Socialism, but almost none of them are to be found in contemporary right-wing circles. Most have a limited understanding of it if any, and have no knowledge that like Capitalism there are many different forms of it. References to the USSR and Venezuela portraying either ignorance or dishonesty through omission that the majority of leftists want the policies of Denmark or Sweden are enough to demonstrate this point.
I am compelled to believe the majority of humans are the majority of the time “good faith actors” both in their daily interactions and their arguments. However, despite their sincerity they can still be convinced by those who are not motivated by a desire for truth but simply to sway as many as possible to the conclusion that benefits them. This is seen in billionaires funding a host of right-wing pundits and publications that despite religious and political differences all agree that the solution to massive poverty is not to tax the people whose lives would not change in the slightest if they were – all the while teaching their flock to shout “George Soros!” as the pigs taught the sheep in Animal Farm.
As most people want “the good” the error in thinking is then in misunderstanding what “the good” is or how we go about in attaining it. The latter error is easily correctable if the person is willing to accept evidence contrary to their previously held beliefs. The most clear example of this is several western European countries outperforming America in health, education, happiness and various other broad categories. The former is based on values and it is my view this is largely psychological and cannot be founded entirely on reasoning. Though there are differences in values-sets such as autonomy, creativity, wealth, free time, style, etc the largest host of fundamental distinctions is a set of values that is based on personal declarations or what one believes an authority holds true or demands.
I value human freedom more than the word of a God that likely does not exist. Even if I believed in God, as far as I can tell, I would still believe in civil rights and the priority of humans doing as they wish despite the Deity being in disagreement. Despite whatever argument Theologians make for or against the ethics of homosexual unions mine would not be theological in nature. Because my set of values exclude the possibility of God’s opinion as “supreme” or being something that is axiomatically given deference without proper argumentation – which is why I’m an apathetic Atheist. Even if God existed, His opinion would be just another one to me and it would be His job to make His argument to me. This is the clearest way I can describe the dichotomy ‘tween values and facts. Values are malleable clearly but do not operate under the epistemology that facts in our world of appearances do. Values are one of the things that separates humans from entirely rational machines and lower biological phenomena that act only on instinct without moral reflection or feeling that there is some evidence other animals are capable of.
Humanity’s social ethics have changed drastically over the millennia. Rousseau’s claim that Man is the “perfectable” animal seems perhaps more accurate than even he was aware. For while “the good” of other organisms is apparent to itself and any rational agent that can observe it long enough, the good of humanity is certainly something that is puzzling regardless of whether there is a correct answer or not. But if there is a good for humanity it almost undoubtedly is in part a social and political good. A political good requires both a declaration of rights and opportunity of access. Humans have made gargantuan progress in regards to the former but the latter ebbs and flows due to the difficulties in sustaining a social ethic, the very thing conservatives have a tenuous relationship with. The political needs of human societies are dependent on the social conditions and functioning of the non-political realm. The failure to understand this is one of the failings of Liberalism. The health of institutions and the institutions ability to provide their proper function the masses is dependent upon the psychology and the will of the rulers. To safeguard against the failings of this lack of social ethic, rulers in a democracy need to fear the reprisals of the citizenry as a farmer fears locusts. A declaration of human rights is not enough.