|Socialists in Democrat Clothing|
|Politics Lance Fairchok, Senior Writer
June 19, 2007
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” – Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948
Seven years into the twenty-first century, Mr. Thomas’ prediction is coming close to fruition; the presidential elections of 2008 may well validate his faith in “liberalism” and its Trojan horse delivery of Socialism. After decades of slow yet persistent desensitization to Socialism in our schools, in our media and in government policy, Americans have become complacent to what the ramifications of Socialism would be upon our prosperity, our individual freedoms and our national identity. Political candidates espouse openly socialist policies without eliciting the slightest outrage or significant comment, so successfully have the philosophies of Marx and Lenin permeated the national debate.
“Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” – Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate
Karl Marx could have written those words, for he was certainly part of their inspiration:
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.”
This statement on its face seems a reasonable philosophy, charitable and humane. However, the hard lessons of history have taught us otherwise; the application of utopian ideals by those who would govern using them has always led to disaster and ruin.
The ideology originates from a profoundly mistaken understanding of human nature, one that misinterprets human self-interest as greed and holds human altruism in distain, assuming it is calculated by self-interest alone. Communism, Socialisms most virulent strain, has been so spectacular a failure it is hard to fathom how anyone could continue to excuse its excesses. Yet, we still see Communist leaders idolized with the same adolescent leftist naiveté that made Pol Pot, Ayatollah Khomeini and Fidel Castro palatable in the West. As is always the case, their depredations shock and embarrass their apologists and quickly disappear from our newspapers and television sets, if they can be found there at all.
Socialists are ever mutable, shifting and accommodating in the winds of political change. They quickly forget the often-horrific consequences of their advocacy. The death of Venezuela’s democracy is now a very real possibility, but few will point to former President Carter for enabling a dictator by validating an obviously rigged election. This amnesia is one of the consistent afflictions of Socialism and the left.
Let us dissect Senator Clinton’s statement, and examine not what is said, but what is inferred. Sometimes a very few words can reveal a great deal. Perhaps we can gain insight into what would be in store for America under a new Clinton administration.
“Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you.”
The persistent theme from the Democrats is that only the rich benefited from tax cuts, and one is to conclude that those with low incomes did not. The sentence uses a clever rhetorical tool to cover what is a lie. The overwhelming evidence is that the tax cuts worked wonders, significantly increasing revenues, reducing unemployment, expanding the economy and reducing the deficit. Even low income households benefited, with millions having their tax burden erased.  Unless one knew that those 20% of Americans with the lowest income only pay 1% of taxes, her claim might make sense. In fact, the 20% with the highest income, the “rich,” contribute almost 70% of tax revenues. The “tax cut for the rich” claims are propaganda resurrected from a by-gone era, one where exacerbating class differences could get votes.
But, who thinks in terms of “class” anymore? Socialists do. It has been their fertile political ground for many decades, a fall back position for everything from Hurricane Katrina to voting fraud. The “disenfranchised,” the poor, the old, the “undocumented Americans” are the proletarian victims of the bourgeois exploiters. As an ideology, it is frayed at the seams in a country overwhelmingly middle class and upwardly mobile.
The National Center for Policy Analysis observed in 2004 that:
“The U.S. Department of the Treasury estimates that repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would raise taxes an average of $1,544 for more than 100 million Americans and cost a married couple with an income of $40,000 and two children $1,933 annually.“
In 2007, those numbers almost certainly will have gone up. The Democrat claim that the tax cuts benefited only the rich is demonstrably false.
NEW YORK (AP) — Dow, S&P 500 Hit Record Highs on Data
Let’s look at the next sentence.
We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.
She fully intends to rescind or fail to renew the tax cuts. Using “probably” makes the statement more palatable by taking of the definitive edge. Doing so would allow “for America to get back on track.” That statement begs the question, back on track to where? What is Senator Clinton’s vision for America? With a vigorous economy and a highly productive middle class, what problems does she see that need fixing? Health Care? Poverty? Immigration? Iraq? We can only wonder. Repealing the cuts would go a long way in making our economy actually match the lefts negative propaganda.
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Where have we heard “the common good” before? It is the title of a book written by radical anti-American leftist Noam Chomsky. Web search the phrase and you get 1,290,000 hits, mostly on the sites of religious organizations, colleges and universities, leftist and Socialist groups. The phrase has been used by well-intentioned religious and political figures for centuries, a disarming platitude that hides all the hideous potentiality of despots and dictators. It usually means “the common good” that they envision with the insufferable arrogance of those who anoint themselves as enlightened.
Let us return to Marx for a moment. “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” and compare that to Hillary Clinton, “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” Of course, “what is best for society” is never defined, but as the proletariat unfairly suffers under the abuses of the bourgeoisie Senator Clinton believes government should make things fair…
“Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.” – Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, May 29, 2007
How does one ensure “fairness” for over 300 million Americans? Everyone has a story of something that unfairly happened to him or her. Personalize the politics; distill them down to a very common, common denominator. We promise to be “fair”! When has big government ever ensured fairness?
For Democrats, the current prosperity is a troublesome dilemma, for how does one point to the disadvantaged and poor to fuel populist moral campaigns, when there are so few? How does one use economics in campaign rhetoric when unemployment is below 4.5 percent? By finding a new group to campaign for such as “undocumented Americans” and demeaning the jobs people have, promising better ones in a never-ending cascade of opportunistic promises that are never fulfilled, yet somehow, astonishingly, are believed. Socialist goals of income redistribution, profit caps, increased tax rates and programs to fix every real or imagined ill in American society are waiting in the wings.
Socialists reject the fundamental premise of a Democratic society; things work best with the least possible government interference. The Socialist formula is government involvement in all aspects of the lives of its citizens. This is called Statism and it inevitably leads to a society controlled by political elites where citizens loose their voice and then their freedom. The Socialist state assumes it can solve societal problems and shape that society through its policies and taxes. European Socialist “Democracies” tax their citizens as high as 60%. Small businesses are folding from excessive regulation and taxes. Unemployment is high and social problems, rather than being corrected from government involvement, are exacerbated.
Socialism bleeds the vitality from a nation; it dilutes the national will, and lulls the citizenry into fatal complacency that makes it ill suited to survival. Existential threats are ignored as social programs progressively consume larger and larger portions of national budgets. Simply put, Socialism is a disaster.
Senator Clinton carefully constructs her public statements to obscure her foundational beliefs, but as you see, they still leak through. The Democrats have embraced Socialism. She may be unaware how obvious it is to those who study history, or she may think the public is desensitized enough that it no longer matters. Democrat “spokespersons” deny it even as the party pushes for policies that are clearly Socialist, policies that have a disturbing record of failure, of increasing spending far out of proportion with benefits, and doing the exact opposite of what the proponents promise. The utopian delusions of Socialism have always induced this dangerous myopia. It is as if they are afflicted with a pathological inability to see the historical consequences or are made so shortsighted by their desire for power they are oblivious to those consequences.
“…because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We have to build a political consensus and that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground. The same with energy. You know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” – Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, June 3, 2007
The American love of individual freedom combined with our willingness, even eagerness, to contribute to our communities with our time, labor and money makes our nation a singular achievement in human history. Our Founding Fathers created a system that understood what best motivates its citizens: a desire to better their lives and the lives of their families. Our willingness to forgo easy comfort and short-term gain for a greater and more lasting prosperity has made us what we are. We expect to work for what we have. We take pride in our labors. We expect our fellow citizens to do the same. We are generous with our charity precisely because it is voluntary. We bridle under oppressive government regulation. We know that utopias are a fairytale, and thankfully, a significant majority of us can still spot a charlatan.
Senator Hillary Clinton, 2008 presidential candidate, said in 1992:
“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.”
For once, I agree.
Vladimir Lenin wrote that, “A lie told often enough becomes truth.” In the struggle for the soul of America, the Socialists are counting on it.
“The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all.” – Richard Weaver, 1962
1. The Tax Foundation, August 17, 2004, Fiscal Fact No. 14 Bush Tax Cuts Erased Income Tax Burden for 7.8 Million Families
|Lance Fairchok is a senior writer for The New Media Journal. He is a retired Air Force Intelligence professional with many years of service in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. His travels left him fascinated by the wide differences in human cultural perceptions and how ideas spread in diverse populations. He writes and does research on a variety of subjects to include totalitarian ideologies, radical Islam and press accuracy. He currently teaches and writes on the Emerald Coast of Florida.|
RADIO TALK SHOWS AND INTERNET SAVING AMERICARADIO TALK SHOWS AND INTERNET SAVING AMERICA
What I find most interesting about the list is the number of “journalists” who essentially admit to breaking the law, either themselves or their family members (many blamed their spouses for making a contribution purportedly in the journalist’s name) – for example:
(D) Fox News Channel, Codie Brooks, researcher for Brit Hume’s “Special Report,” $300 to Senate campaign of Harold Ford Jr., Tennessee Democrat, in March 2006, $200 more in June, and $2,100 more in September.
Brooks, who said her family is friendly with Ford’s, said she raised much of the $2,600 from friends – it wasn’t her money alone. “A lot of Fox employees have contributed to Democratic candidates. I know I’m not the only one.”
Collins says that her father made the campaign contribution. “I had told my dad that I was friends with this man. He said, ‘Would you like me to make a donation?’ I said, ‘That’s up to you, but don’t do it in my name.‘” She said her father also made a $2,000 contribution in her name to Kay Granger, Republican, Texas, in 2004, when Collins was a student in broadcast journalism at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Or how ignorant they are on just what the law requires, a law many of them report on (when discussing disclosures or nondisclosures by candidates):
No longer at The Atlantic, Spaulding said, “It’s certainly not the Atlantic’s contribution.” She said she was not aware that contributions were disclosed on the Internet with a donor’s occupation and employer.
Kendall said she opposes the war and thought that her donation was anonymous.