Posted on 12/13/2001 7:37:16 AM PST by John SBM
Socialism is still a dirty word in American politics. But, like an obese person who looks in the mirror and see a thin reflection denying they are fat, America is in a state of denial. If we look the evidence is there, but rather than admit it we refuse to acknowledge the word. Does evasion of the fact change the reality?
Every major historic period can be categorized by the dominant philosophy of the time. We know them. The Dark Ages, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment. And we know what each label represented as the dominant, generally accepted ideas of the time. These labels are attached however, not during the period, but after, when we can see them in the context of history. Whether we label our current period as Post-Modern or whatever, in historic context it could be labeled as The Altruist Evasion.
Altruism is the dominant, generally accepted idea underlying all of our political and cultural discourse, and it permeates both political parties. The ideas that economic rights are the basic rights of all Americans, that the government exists to promote the welfare of some at the expense of others, that we owe “service” and must “give back” to society – these are the basic premises of every issue. And Pragmatism rules every action – action for the sake of the emotional benefit of action rather than the result. Altruism demands pragmatic approaches, because it is based on emotional arguments and collapses when faced with principled challenges. Altruism is the underlying support for socialism, where group rights are primary, individual rights are disposable.
Take a look. The tax code exists to transfer wealth; the total tax burden exceeds 50% and is the single biggest expense for most working Americans. Politicians gain power through the give and take of economic rights and benefits – look at the economic stimulus debate. We talk of the right to housing, to health care, to prescription drugs, to guaranteed retirement, without ever asking “at whose expense?”
Ayn Rand summarized this very simply – when you abandon one set of principles you adopt another. We have abandoned the principles of individual rights and accepted those of economic rights – the degree of socialization doesn’t change that fact. We can evade the word “Socialism”, but that doesn’t change the reality.
Nope. Everyone knows I'm a "Nazi," or at least that's what they call me, so I'm being quite open about the gifts I'm giving.
In fact they are now the most vehement promoters of "Big Government" and Centralized control of the individual. Big government must feel very fortunate that the 9-11 attacks occurred. Not because they are callous to the loss of life but because the attacks give them the opportunity to be seen by the mass of individuals as the only one who can protect them. Therefore, the individuals are more than willing to let the government control virtually everything.
The centralized government expansion of control and the nationalist bigotry remind me more and more of a hybrid socialist, fascist, monarchy.
And to extend this, there are those that simply allowed it to happen; and I'm not talking about those that are forcing socialism on us (Kennedy, Clinton, Gore, etc...). I think much of the "anti-Kennedy, Clinton, Gore, etc..." crowd is just as culpable in many ways.
For instance, many people justified voting for candidates George HW Bush, BobDole, and George W Bush on the grounds that they are "not Clinton, Clinton and Gore". Notable, yes, but they were so blinded by this one thought that they never stopped to think what candidates George HW Bush, BobDole, and George W Bush were.
So we wound up with, in 1992 and 1996, two of the most unelectable candidates (never mind Bush41 winning in 1988; that was Reagan not Bush) running two of the most inept campaigns in American electoral history. Both won their nominations on the grounds that they were "not Clinton". Even their supporters admitted they were not ideal, but, hey, they were "not Clinton".
George W Bush was nominated with much of the same reservations. To his credit, he learned the lessons of the past and ran a good campaign. He won against a man who had the election handed to him, but could not restrain his natural inclination to be an absolute, grade-A, top-flight prick.
But what did we get, besides someone who is "not Al Gore"?
Now, he has handled the military aspects of the war in the middle east magnificently, and I am grateful he is in office instead of Gore.
But before September 11, he expanded the role of the Federal government into gift-giving, a clearly unConstitutional intrusion that will profoundly impact private charities; has promised "amnesty" to millions of illegal immigrants, thereby assuring the next wave of terrorists will have a home; and managed to strong-arm Red China into the WTO, thereby ensuring America's enemies will continues to supply her goods, and continuing the crippling of American manufacturing. And bailing out the airline industry was an abomination (and showed a disturbing lack of creativity to boot).
So to bring this all together, the guy we elected because he is "not Al Gore" has behaved in a way that make Al Gore proud.
You are correct. Many Christians are so busy trying to love others and be socially correct, they cannot see the evil that they are actively trying to bring to this nation.
I'd say still in facsism moving toward socialism.
Note: Weabster's Unabridged defines Fascism as stated above, with or without a dictator. All above definitions are "Economic" terms.
That's a very interesting statement. In your opinion, is this nationalistic bigotry more troubling because it feeds big government or because it blinds some of us who claim to be nationalists?
Communism failed because it took away freedom, ran inefficiently and created an elite group of rulers that enjoyed the good life so to speak.
Would we in America really be any better of if our Government take away our freedom and ensures a lavish lifestyle for the rich and famous? And speaking of bureaucracy have you though about how much bureaucracy there is these days? When large business can dictate to the government what its policy will be and we the people have no say in the matter are we any better off. Take missile defense for example. Did you get to vote on the missile defense shield? What use is all of the comforts of home when home succumbs to a nuclear warhead?
Would it be better to have a few Marxist running the show or a few corporate executives?
The question we need to ask is does your government serve the people or do we serve the government? Remember it is supposed to be government by the people for the people.
People forget the satisfaction that is brought in risk-taking, commitment, sharing, and building for generations to follow. It enriches every moment of life. That's why I am fighting to reverse the trend by developing an alternative to regulatory government.
And all of this is still his plan and goals. We are in much more danger now from these proclivities because 9-11 has stirred up such a fascist nationalism that whatever he does, no matter how ultimately destructive, are being embraced by those who call themselves conservatives.
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.