Posted on 11/26/2004 6:47:42 AM PST by SandRat
Throughout the 2004 campaign, Sen. John Kerry maintained his proposed health-care plan could not be labeled as "socialized health care."
Arguably, his plan would have at least partially de-privatized the American health-care system. Only through massive insurance pools in which everyone had a vested interest would Kerry have been able to fulfill his bold promise to expand coverage to "96 percent of Americans and 99 percent of all children." But a majority of voters refused to buy into Kerry's health-care plan.
This plan introduced us to the "collectivist" ideology that acts as the driving force behind so many socially liberal policies.
An examination of the manner in which the left wing justifies this, and other moves toward socialism within governmental policies in American society, reveals a commonality in almost all liberal thinking.
As nationally syndicated radio host Dennis Prager points out, "At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good.
"As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism and anything else that can let the individual off the hook."
Prager is correct; it is a key component of the liberal agenda that it is almost always the system at fault and never the individual.
A prime example of this kind of thought can be found in the perception of the events of 9/11. The terrorists can be seen in one of two ways: as brutal, coldblooded murderers or simply as "victims" of the teachings of Islamic fundamentalism. Take your pick; I'll go with the first one.
Taking Prager's thoughts one step farther, there is even an underlying motivation behind the naive belief that people are essentially good. If people are basically good, as liberals maintain, then socialism can work.
Liberals, fully aware that their goal of socialism in the United States is unattainable because it will never be widely accepted, are content with knowing smaller steps in the direction of socialism can still be taken.
This mentality was seen following the election, when many students at my school looked on Canada as a better option than another term under President Bush.
By indirectly attacking the American system - a system of capitalism and free markets that conflicts with the interests of socialism - liberals can successfully evade such labels as "unpatriotic" while still advancing a socialist agenda.
Diverting blame from the individual to the system is not progressive or new at all. Thomas More (1478-1535) believed the key to reform of the individual was the reform of the social institutions that shape the individual.
More's "Utopia" described the perfect socialist society. This society was far from utopian, as it was forced to prevent wars by buying off its enemies. Where is the perfection in that?
Centuries later, liberals still advance their agenda under the same premise. Perhaps the real system at fault is that found in liberal thinking.
Impressive article for a High School sophomore!
It's doubtful liberals think wealthy Christian Republican property owners are basically good. Still, this great piece from a high school sophomore shows that liberals might have to stop depending on the public schools to hide basic economic truth.
This sums it up quite nicely.
good enough to be somebody's tagline
Redistribution of wealth away from the producers and the "can-doers" in our Nation toward the weak, apathetic slackers, (and toward the nanny state's coffer for building more self-perpetuating programs), is pure evil at the core.
That's why America will reject socialism. It creates a dependent society and stifles initiative by encouraging the status quo.
A sophomore? I'm impressed. Perhaps there IS hope!
The first step of the left is to create a problem. Then they rush in to solve it. Of course, their "solution" does nothing but create more problems, which they must then solve as well.
This kid nailed it perfectly.
The Groton influence of Endicott Peabody showed in a speech Roosevelt gave at the People's Forum in Troy, NY in 1912. There he declared that western Europeans and Americans had achieved victory in the struggle for "the liberty of the individual," and that the new agenda should be a "struggle for the liberty of the community." The wrong ethos for a new age was, "every man does as he sees fit, even with a due regard to law and order." The new order should be, "march on with civilization in a way satisfactory to the well-being of the great majority of us."
In that speech Roosevelt outlined the philosophical base of what would eventually become the New Deal. He also forecast the rhetorical mode by which "community" could loom over individual liberty. "If we call the method regulation, people hold up their hands in horror and say ‘un-American,' or ‘dangerous,'" Roosevelt pointed out. "But if we call the same identical process co-operation, these same old fogeys will cry out ‘well done'.... cooperation is as good a word for the new theory as any other."
If we're going to reject it, we ought to be getting started.
PR, courtesy of the Robet Wood Johnson Foundation.
But think how many life saving techniques and life saving drugs come out of countries that have socialized health care.
1)There is the abortion pill. oops that is life taking.
2) ?
Why America will reject it? You mean vote against medicare, social security? They are both socialist programs.
"If we're going to reject it, we ought to be getting started."
In the post-Depression era, the widespread change that Roosevelt's policies brought about was needed. Welfare, his five-year plan, New Deal, the TVA and other governmental "get to work" projects, etc. were much-needed shots in the arm in order for our Nation to recover.
None were actually intended to become permanent, however.
We haven't needed those kinds of sweeping and over-reaching programs in decades. We have risen to our position in the World via individual initiative and the spirit of capitalism - which drives people to make their own improvements in their own lives.
Dependence is a self-perpetuating cycle because it easily quenches thirst for quick comfort.
The hard right course is best for long-term progress: self-reliance.
His age is certainly no argument against him, nor did I intend any offense. In fact, to the degree he sees so much more clearly than, say, a certain cadaverous Massachusetts senator with aspirations for the presidency, his age recommends him highly.
"You mean vote against medicare, social security? They are both socialist programs."
Yes, they are. Again, never intended to become permanent fixtures. Just because we have SOME socialist programs, doesn't mean we're a full-blown socialism. That's what this whole thing is addressing.
Any government will have some inherent programs to address social woes. It states in the Preamble to our Constitution: "....ensure domestic tranquility....promote the GENERAL welfare...".
Nowhere does it state that we'll fill every outstretched hand.
The more hands we quickly and easily fill, the more we'll find being stretched out.
Conservative historians seem to agree that Roosevelt's New Deal programs did little to alleviate the Depression, and in many cases exacerbated it's effects.
His pursuit of socialism was not driven out of a sense of necessity due to the economic conditions, although he did use them as a justification. The speech I excerpted from was given 17 years before the crash of '29.
hope for the next generation alert.
OK - I guess I'm missing the point you're trying to make then.
Are you agreeing with me that socialism is evil - or are you disagreeing with me when I say that America will not accept full-blown socialism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.