I'm not sure whether this has resulted from "government's natural tendency to grow at the expense of liberty," or actual efforts by the Left, or both, but clearly the results are the same.
When government begins "granting" rights (entitlements), the people begin thinking that socialism is an American tradition. And then they accept that government, since it is responsible for them, should naturally regulate them.
Did I read somewhere that Hillary is a follower of Gramsci?
Libertarians are the only party to recognize that both professional parties have submitted to the cultural hegemony of Liberal statism. They imbrace their servitude as long as they can force others to also serve themselves. Those at the bottom of the pile have no choice but to submit. The main and only difference between Democrats and Republicans is which group will dominate which group to be at the top. Libertarians seek to not have domination by the state at all.
Are we to believe that there will be no future political enlightenments in this world???
This is also the basis for all modern non-union corporate organizations, which are based on motivation of the employee through self-actualization, rather than the old management-labor conflict. See Abraham Maslow.
This is exactly what "communism" became in practice. The old communist is sitting around waiting for capitalism to collapse. It ain't gonna happen. The practicing communist is nothing more than a motivated opportunist.
When the Soviet Union imploded, there was a sudden realization of a Russian mafia. In fact, the Russian mafia was always there. The west got its first glimpse of of the "real" communists when the walls came down.
This is wrong. The Marxist revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, and Mozambique, among others, enjoyed widespread popular support, even if the eventual results were not quite as expected. (Yes, the Russians supported them -- but the grounds and support for revolution were already there.)
Mr. Burns had to have known this, but apparently chose to ignore it to make his tinfoil-hatted point. It's almost (dare we say it) a Gramscian move on his part.
The stuff about Gramsci is somewhat interesting, but Burns clearly can't be taken seriously.