All Hail the Matriarchist Revolution!

The world is going to hell in a hand basket and no leader is presently going to provide the social order that allows everyone to survive happily. Time to try Matriarchism.

Anarchism, capitalism, communism, neoliberalism, patriarchalism, socialism, traditionalism, and any the other of the isms known to us, have all failed. We are less than a generation from climactic disaster, worldwide authoritarian rule and endless conflict.

What is Matriarchism, you ask? Fair question.

The Wikipedia tells us that "matriarchy is a social system in which females hold the primary power positions in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property." It's also called gynecocracy. 

That's not what I am proposing, which would be a mere inversion of the current patriarchy.

Matriarchism, and a revolution to empower it, means setting up a maternal form of social order in which the primary goal of those who govern and possess moral authority is to nurture and ensure the happy survival of all, in a peaceful and benevolent way.

The Matriarchist Revolution will not be achieved by beheadings, tortures, imprisonment, or social "cancelling" of purported "enemies of the people." A Matriarchist regards all people as if they were her children, favoring none, helping and loving all.

Most women are presently best prepared for leadership in such a society, by virtue of their preparation for or experience of motherhood; however, so are some men.

Yes, some mothers can be harmful. Also, Margaret Thatcher (and a few others like her) is not who I would want in charge; she was merely a patriarch without a penis.

But ideally, what is motherhood among mammals supposed to be about?

Think about the mothers you have admired. They were people who made sure their children were fed, clothed and otherwise nurtured, learned to distinguish right from wrong, benevolently enforced such values, always with the aim of seeing the child profoundly and permanently happy.

Angela Merkel, without knowing it, is an example of a Matriarchist leader. She has striven mightily to push for the best of all her citizenry, without easy shortcuts. Is she perfect? Of course not.

But what if we replaced all the world's leaders with Angela Merkels? Wouldn't our nations be cooperating to bring about a green economy globally? Wouldn't the poorest of the poor be looked after? Wouldn't there be benign leaders everywhere who attempt to persuade and direct society toward universal love?

I'm certain Angela Merkel, if she ever reads my puny blog, will be horrified to be placed on such a pedestal. That's precisely why she is there!

My Facebook friend Christina Kelly unknowingly voiced a Matriarchist belief when she said: "I would prefer [matriarchy] if all men and women had access to sufficient education, and training to fully self-govern, with no need for either male, or female dominance."

Think about it!

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS VS THE WAR MACHINE

I'm beginning to see criticism of Biden from the Left, of which I am a moderate member. Did anyone think that Biden was anything but a standard issue liberal Democrat? Remember LBJ and Vietnam? (But also LBJ's Medicare, AFDC, Job Corps, etc.?)

From a policy standpoint, liberal Democrats have always faced a puzzling paradox since World War II concerning the military. Think of the economic effects of military spending:

1) The military yields higher employment for otherwise unqualified lower-middle class and poor citizens and a generally very nice, wholly subsidized, suburban lifestyle for military families. (Admittedly, with drawbacks such as injury and death. Although US casualties have usually been kept comparably low. No wars since 1941 have involved civilian deaths in the mainland USA. In WW2, the USSR had 11 million military deaths, Germany 4 million ; the USA 407,000, less than half a million. With civilian deaths, in Europe and Asia, some 70 million were killed. The much vaunted 55,000 US dead in Vietnam pale next to the 700,000 military Vietnamese dead and the million or so civilians killed in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.)

2) The Pentagon also subsidizes a nice chunk of the civilian economy. Boeing workers, for example, are highly paid and unionized, as are most major military contractors. After WW2, Boeing declined to the point it shrank to having a clothing store, in Seattle I think, as its main facility in the late 1940s. The Korean War saved Boeing.

3) Then there are the communities in which bases are located, which, once again, reap untold indirect economic subsidies.

4) The military is the only social welfare program that can be sold as pro-business and "patriotic."

So the question is: with what do we replace the war machine?