ARE DEMOCRATS SOCIALISTS

Fiedor Report On the News #280 ^ | 7-28-02 | Doug Fiedor

[forest]

We, and others, have labeled the Democrats as a bunch of socialists. Some are, of course. But, that "some" does not necessarily define the whole of the group. So, maybe we should reconsider. That is, maybe we should label them more by what they do, rather than just by what they say.

Socialism, after all, implies outright nationalization of the means of production. Government would take ownership of all business. Sure, the Democrats have tried to have government take over segments of business from time to time, but never everything in the country. They have never even hinted at making everyone an employee of the state. Rather, Democrats just want to keep certain segments of society as dependent on government as possible so they can control them -- and count on those groups for their vote.

Democrats, as a whole, are into control. That is, instead of government ownership of our nation's agriculture, business and industry, the Democratic Party favors private ownership. The responsibility for operation is then placed in private hands, rather than governments.

Under the plan of the Democratic Party, government will only control, not own, the means of production in the United States. That started with Roosevelt's "New Deal." Therein, dozens of regulatory bureaucracies were formed with new (totally unconstitutional) powers to regulate all agriculture, business and industry in the country. Roosevelt claimed this was done to fight the depression. But, even when the depression was over, the bureaucracies increased in size and power.

The Johnson administration followed Roosevelt's lead with the "Great Society" war on poverty. That cost the American taxpayer's nearly three-trillion dollars and did nothing except steal more freedom. The poverty level is higher now than before the Great Society programs began. But, the bureaucracy expanded considerably as government extended its controlling tentacles into our private lives.

Then came the environmental movement. First, man was said to be causing another ice age. That proven false, they changed it to global warming. Whichever. EPA is one of the most obnoxious and best financed regulatory agencies today. They control some aspect of nearly everything we do.

Then came the multi-billion dollar war on drugs. Again, Americans saw freedoms evaporate and the police state greatly expand. Today, a citizen can be said, but need not proven, to be guilty of a drug offense and, through unconstitutional forfeiture laws, government can take any goods or money they wish. A trial is no longer necessary. Today, punishment comes before trial. And that punishment is at the discretion of government agents -- who then get to keep all the goods or money they take for the use of the people in their own department.

Of course, we are all familiar with today's style of free speech, commonly called "politically correct" speech. The Democrats have even usurped our language. Like Orwell's "Newspeak," today's speech is often very sanitized. In today's schools, such a tight rein is kept on the thoughts and speech of students that kids will actually be expelled for drawing a picture of a gun or even pointing a finger and saying "bang." Cursing, however, is politically correct -- as is the free distribution of birth control devices and/or the distribution of literature promoting deviant sexual behavior.

Little or none of this is socialism. Therefore, we should now quit calling the Democrats socialists. They are something else. But what?

Well, they caused vast unconstitutional government programs at taxpayer's expense. None of these programs promoted free market solutions. None were ever used to expand individual freedom. Just the opposite, in fact. Every single Democrat program greatly restricted the freedom of the American people.

The Democrats mutated the federal government into a system of government marked by centralization of authority. The Democrats' programs put forth stringent socioeconomic controls. Now, with their "politically correct" garbage, they are attempting to suppress all opposition through terror and censorship. They label anyone supporting the Constitution as a radical, call those with religious convictions kooks, and say that anyone who refuses to associate with the deviants of society are dangerous. They become belligerent to parents who demand their children actually learn useful skills in school rather than liberal indoctrination. And they are even trying to tell us that a garden variety owl or bug takes precedence over the land use of humans.

The Democrats have a simple concept, actually. The activities of the individual must be subjugated to the will of the state. The state, then, will be directed by leaders like them: Democrat-Fascists.  

 END

[Publius6961]

I am sure that hidden among that pompous verbiage there must be a point?

Being of humble origins, I failed to see an iota of analysis or conclusion, merely the derision of others.

You wouldn't have a cake in the oven, would you?

[Torie]

I am sorry you are disappointed with me. I thought I made my point. Maybe you just don't like the point.

[Redcloak]

Here's a dirty little secret: Most Republicans are also socialists.

[LIBERTARIAN JOE]

The fringe elements on FR have it right; on the big economic and redistributionist issues, the two parties are not all that different

As one of the "fringe", I thank you for the compliment! To have gov't grow 6% a year (lib dem) or 5.5% a yr (lib repub) or 5.0% a yr ('conservative' dem) or 4.5% a yr ('right-wing' repub) ain't any different to me.

Ain't it a shame that the political party that wants to reduce the size of fed gov't drastically, as well as restore the constitutional republic with it's 50 states charting their own paths of representative government, is considered a 'fringe' party?

Vote Libertarian! be one with the fringe.

[Torie]

A fair enough post. I however subscribe to the social safety net, as do most voters. So while I respect your point of view, I can't subscribe to it.

[Brush_Your_Teeth]

taxes went up after the American revolution a monarchy is a better form of government

Taxes went up to pay the debt to france and the dutch that gave us credit. It did not go up to pay for medicare. Also in a monarchy the bussiness sector always paid very heavy taxes and could not own land. The only execptions were good friends and members of the royal family.

[LIBERTARIAN JOE]

A fair enough post. I however subscribe to the social safety net, as do most voters. So while I respect your point of view, I can't subscribe to it.

I don't understand how you came to feel that I don't support a social safety net, because I do. The problem is, the method of providing such a system is unworkable (long term) as it is currently being practised. You must have personal responsibility and accountability, as well as a strong, ingrained work ethic, for such a system to work. Gov't social programs at all levels, as practised today, discourages all these things.

Before all fedgov welfare programs and most state welfare programs came about, we had a little economic downturn called the "Great Depression". You may have heard of it. Nobody starved, few went homeless. The feds enacted many social programs in response to it, and just about all economists agree that those programs prolonged the depression right up to WWII. Churches, charity hospitals, well-to-do individuals and city and county welfare offices helped everyone in need who showed that their need was due to misfortune and that they were willing to help themselves. The lazy, shiftless bums content with living off others learned quick that there was no handout for them.

Before the "great society" social programs of the '60's destroyed the black family structure, the inner cities, and began the destruction of medical care in the US, nobody in genuine need, due to misfortune, was turned away from those charities or local welfare offices, nobody starved, went without shelter or health care. Because your 'social safety net' hadn't yet siphoned off so much of a paycheck's buying power, most households could have one adult working to financially support the family, while the other maintained the home and raised the children to become moral and responsible additions to the community. Routine health care was affordable out-of-pocket to just about anybody with a job (doctors even made house calls!) and affordable insurance, or the now-extinct charity hospitals covered major health problems.

That brings us to today. Thanks to the republicrat social safety net, getting pregnant means a pay raise for a welfare queen that's never had a job, getting a gov't handout is as simple as mailing off a form (no face-to-face meeting to show genuine need or effort to gain employment), nearly a million people a year pour over the border and most of them go straight to the gov't teat, gov't health programs have so-inflated demand for medical care to the point that even routine health care is not affordable without insurance, taxes have risen to the point that responsible couples put off having kids, or leave the kids moral development to others, so both can work, old people get 'warehoused' in cruel, heartless institutions because everbody responsible enough to care for them is off at work, and an entry-level job doesn't provide as good a living as your 'social safety net' and is frowned on by those job-seeker's peers, generations raised on the public dole.

I applaude your good intentions, your desire for a utopian world of "from each according to ability, to each according to need", But it doesn't work! Good intentions are responsible for as much pain and suffering as any evil inflicted on man. We're an imperfect species. If you shelter people from their bad choices, laziness and desire to get something for nothing, you do nothing but breed dependancy.

Yes, I too believe in the social safety net. Mine is multi-layered. There's me, and then my family, and then my friends. After that, my community. God help me if my needs go beyond that, because then I would be humbly asking strangers for help in competition with millions raised to believe that a handout is their right!

[Torie]

I will absorb you prose with my comprehension with the clarity of the morn, but of course, absolutes don't get one very far. Personal responsibility and consequences with a helping hand need to be an inseperable mix. To decouple them one way or another is profoundly immoral and unworkable. And with a subscription to a mix comes prudence and experience, and airy ideological nostrums begin to lose some of their appeal. Empirical details begin to matter, and the heavy lifting of serious and responsible public policy begins.

[LIBERTARIAN JOE]

you must be English, I didn't understand anything past 'absorb'... sorry, I'm a product of gov't schooling (dumber than a rock).

Sorry to preach, I'm suffering from insomnia and freepin' is something to do. If you are across the pond, look around and tell me the multi-cultural social-welfare state is workable in the long run. Don't make that judgement based on the homogenous, hard-working Britain of the past. Interpolate from where England was in the '50's to where it is now, and tell me that it will be improved in the future & maybe I'll dust off my old books on Marx and give him another read.

[harrowup]

...Every single Democrat program greatly restricted the freedom of the American people.

The Marshall Plan and the TVA come to mind as absolute refutation of this bit of hyperbole.

As far as the title...Some Democrats are way over to the left and are clearly Marxists. I can think of a dozen off the top of my head...almost all of whom are associated with the Black Caucus. There are some Democrats who are certainly more conserv ative than many Republicans.

There are no absolutes and no future in constantly poking each other with sticks. We are all Americans and with very few exceptions, we are loyal to our country and fellow man.

[Nonstatist]

Both parties are on the 45 yard line on opposite sides of the 50 yard line maybe.

Really? And what if the Dems had the Presidency and over 60 in the Senate and 300 in the House like they did under Roosevelt and Johnson? You dont think ther would be an ENORMOUS expansion of Gov't then? Nationalized medicine , Universal child care entitlement, college entitlements, etc? Would it matter to them that we stand at a high percentage of govt intervention already?

I think none of that would matter.I suppose theres a point at which they would go no further, but we're not near that yet; look at much of Europe as a guide. They are dangerous if given too much power, even if only for 2 yrs. Thats all they need, IMO

[sheik yerbouty]

Many have gone beyond Marxism and have become Jacobins.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Fasicsm can be defined broadly and accurately as criminally corrupt socialism. Whether by statute, regulation, kickback, or threats "under penalty of law", aka police state extortion, of critical assets of the four factors of production (labor, land, management, and capital), effective power is the goal of modern socialists world wide.

Current theo-fascist regimes share with communist states and the NAZI model the traits of personal greed and police state control over their subjugated populations. The "power elite's" politburo system is the most effective concentration of police power assuring continuity. It is the role model for the Clintons' New Democrat DNC organization.

Vice-presidential candidate, Senator/Rabbi Lieberman and his conspiring accomplices in Congress established that they are unworthy of national leadership, but dangerously in control of national power.

The Clintons' abuses of power were/are enabled by their defacto secret police (FBI files). Damage to the Rule of Law from House and Senate conspirators AND judicial cover ups indicate how close our government came to the voiding of our Constitution.

Among others since the killing of innocents at "Waco" in 1993, executive actions "above the law" defined Bill and Hillary's lust for power and our governments' willingness to enable fascism.

[forest]

So true. That's history. Cause a problem, then solve it when the people scream for help. But with help comes control. It's an old mechanism, tried and true. Hang on to your pants.

[Sam Cree]

"'capitalists and the greedy' are their favorite terms to alienate people from the conservative ranks"

And yet the Democrats and the Left are the true incarnation of greed. Their entire philosophy is based on stealing wealth and property from those who have actually earned it. Their appeal is to those who envy the wealth and accomplishments of others. They buy votes by promising something for nothing, something that they will forcibly take from those who have legitimately acquired it, usually through foresight and hard work.

If that's not greed, I don't know what is. I do know what is not greed, what is not greed is working hard to make something of yourself, and thereby also benefitting society as a whole.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

I agree. National Socialists seems more appropriate. With a tinge of communist thrown in.

[Sam Cree]

"And we, my largely caucasian conservative, christian friends, are the 'jews' in this scenario. Look at the way they talk about us. Like we steal from the poor, take unfair advantage, have all the money, all the luck, keep everybody else down. "

That's an eery parallel. I'd noticed it before, but hadn't thought of it yet in such chilling terms.

What are you getting at the gun store?

[Sam Cree]

"-- the domestic enemy that many of us have sworn to protect the Constitution from. They should be destroyed in detail. Within the law, of course."

Agreed. 'Course, some laws they'v gotten passed are not constitutional.

[Sam Cree]

"Once the number of parasites exceeds the number of workers..."

Yeah, parasite is the right word. Socialism is nothing but a parasite that feeds on capitalism. By itself, it starves.

[Sam Cree]

I enjoyed your essay on post # 67. Am thinking of saving it in a word document.

Torie's not pompous or anything is he? Though I agreed with one of his points.