Hillary Bets On Socialism's Appeal in 2008

Hillary Clinton is often touted as the “most intelligent woman in America.” I have an aunt who is practically salivating (or is that foaming at the mouth?) over the prospect of a Hillary presidency, as Hillary will surely solve all of America’s inequalities with a woman’s touch. Political pundits like Dick Morris insist that the “Clinton Machine” is unstoppable and will make no significant errors while piloting her over any rocky reef en route to the White House in 2008. If one accepts any of these paradigms, Hillary’s speech to the Manchester (NH) School of Technology this week was quite a conundrum; it was either a major and suicidal campaign sinker or it signaled that the Democratic Party believes America is ready to abandon its 231 year experiment with self-determination and capitalism.

Here are a few highlights from the AP/Yahoo story:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

…"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Karl Marx? Lenin? Stalin? No, these are the views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, socialist extraordinaire. The only chance “workers” have for success is when the government steps in to “help.” It isn’t fair that some get rich while others remain poor. “Fairness doesn’t just happen,” the government must make life fair by punishing achievers for having too much success. These are the tenets of socialism, with “fairness” serving as the emotionally charged catchphrase slogan to disguise the intended vehicle for Hillary’s version of “fairness.” Had this Manchester speech been a slip-up or something taken out of context, it would still stand out as particularly socialist. However, Hillary has gone down this road before. This is what she said in June 2004:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Now that’s an inspiring campaign slogan for a potential American president!

I recently wrote that America’s leaders are becoming more French while France’s leaders are becoming more American. Newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected on a platform consisting of the following: Fight the War on Terror as America’s ally; reform France’s immigration system, particularly as it applies to the influx of Muslim immigrants; shrink the government’s role in providing social services (including socialized medicine) to its citizens; eliminate the 35 hour work week and promote more work, greater achievement, and less dependence on government subsidies for the unemployed and business owners.

Contrast that winning French platform with what Hillary is proposing for America in 2008: retreat from Iraq and giving al Qaeda victory in the War on Terror; “reform” America’s immigration policy through amnesty and citizenship for 12-20 million illegal aliens; increase the role of government by providing massive new services such as “universal health care” (socialized medicine) and replacing economic self-determination with “shared prosperity” through government intervention (socialism).

When considered from this perspective, electing Hillary would place America on a sure path to becoming socialist France, while the French electing Sarkozy placed them on a course to emulate capitalist America. Hillary’s GOP opponents should wield these contrasts like a political bludgeon, hitting her hard every time she utters a phrase that espouses socialist tendencies and bluntly referring to her as a socialist. This is why her speech was a conundrum. The “Clinton machine” so ominously reverenced by Dick Morris must surely know that the majority of Americans will reflexively vote against someone who can effectively be branded as a socialist, yet they do nothing to curb her references to “shared prosperity” or government provided fairness. Why is Hillary speaking so openly of her socialist ideas during a primary campaign cycle when it can so easily be used later in the general election cycle by the GOP nominee to paint her (accurately) as a socialist?

Two reasons come to mind. First, Hillary must earn the nomination of her party, which embraces Euro-socialist ideals, and she will not be the nominee without establishing, at least verbally, her socialist credentials. Instead of “street cred”, the DNC demands “Soc cred,” the promise that all people will be given everything they need or want through government services. Second, Hillary’s advisers truly believe America is ripe for a socialist harvest in 2008. Despite record stock market growth and peaks, despite record low unemployment (4%), and despite the highest percentage of Americans owning their own homes in the nation’s history, Hillary’s camp is preaching the gospel of class envy and apparently is betting that they can convince voters by 2008 that the economy is failing, everyone is out of work, no one can afford health insurance, and the rich are grinding the faces of the poor every chance they get.

It is ironic that the same liberals who insist that Darwin was right about evolution and natural selection refuse to accept capitalism as economic Darwinism, with the survival of the fittest as the linchpin of a free market system. Are animals that cannot adapt through evolution allowed to survive out of “fairness?” Should businesses that produce a product no longer wanted in the market be protected from their competitors who are meeting market demands for new and better goods? Should workers who are incompetent or unproductive be protected from termination out of “fairness?” For that matter, what should be done with candidates who lose elections? After all, it isn’t “fair” that one should prosper while another languishes in defeat. Who decides what is “fair,” the government? No thanks.

The government has never been the solution to poverty, unemployment, racism, or any of the other social ills that can infect society. Poverty has proven much more virulent war opponent than terrorism. FDR could not eliminate it, Johnson waged a “war on poverty” but poverty, like the impervious cockroach, seems to survive all threats to its existence. Could it be that poverty survives because economic “fairness” is a socialist utopian dream that runs counter to nature? There have always been, and will always be rich and poor people in every society, but do the poor need rescuing? It is the arrogance of the wealthy (and most liberal socialists are rich, like Clinton) to assume that success in life must be measured by the accumulation of wealth. There can be dignity in poverty, usually far more dignity and humility than is found among the affluent. If success is measured, as it should be, by living an honorable life, then one does not need income redistribution or “fairness” in economic opportunity to be successful in life.

Socialism has failed in every respect in every society that has ever attempted to live by it, yet the DNC, and Hillary in particular, continue to aggressively foist it upon America as the magic medicinal tonic that will cure all of society’s ills. Rather than taking Hillary’s or Obama’s or any other American liberal’s endorsement of socialism at face value, we should consider some dissenting opinions:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'" - Thomas Jefferson

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to ‘help.’” – Thomas Sowell

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” — Ronald Reagan

The “Clinton machine” would have us believe that a vote for Hillary is a vote for “fairness,” but as Reagan stated, there is only an up or down. Voting for Hillary is voting for Marx, rather than Jefferson. The Founding Fathers defined fairness as the opportunity to succeed or fail based on the inherent capacities of the individual (see Jefferson above). Hillary wants to assure that no one can fail, thus clearly she has abandoned the intent and content of our founding documents. Socialism does not just happen. We do not wake up one morning, fire up the Internet and read on Capital Cloak that America became a socialist nation overnight. However, if we continue to embrace government programs as the solution to poverty or social problems, the addiction to socialism will become unbreakable while we were sleeping.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton Socialism Shared Prosperity Presidential Campaign

If a Newly Freed Tree Falls in a Formerly Communist Forest and No One Hears it, Does it Still Make a Sound?

Media reports of good news are rare, but today's events in China deserve more attention than Anna Nicole Smith's drug prescriptions, which seem to have captivated the celebrity-obsessed media (I would write 'liberal media' but since Fox News dedicates as much air time and web space to Smith as any other news source, I must be fair and balanced).

In my March 8th post, "America and China Move Steadily in Opposite Directions," I wrote about the irony inherent in Communist China's consideration of legislation to protect private property rights, while America, courtesy of the Kelo V. New London City (CT) Supreme Court decision, is moving in the opposite direction. At the time that post was written, the private property protection legislation in China was undergoing debate and had not yet been voted on, though its creators expressed optimism that it would pass. Activists seeking reform in China frequently exude similar optimism but often meet with rejection of their ideas, and so it was with cautious hope last week that I wrote about their efforts in the area of personal property protection.

Those hopes were rewarded today with the report that China did in fact pass the proposed personal property protection legislation, in what should have been a story that trumped meaningless celebrity "news" stories in today's publications and network news programming. The importance of the newly passed protection law should become more evident as private investors and entrepreneurs flock to China, since their profits, infrastructures, and intellectual property will belong exclusively to them rather than shared or owned outright by the Chinese government. China has been moving steadily toward a true market-based economy, and the lack of the right of ownership was a significant obstacle to private investors wanting to create and profit from their businesses.

The Washington Post report of today's legislative achievement in China described the event, in part, as follows:

legal scholars said it broke ground by establishing new protections for private home and business owners and for farmers with long-term leases on their fields.

These goals had long been sought by the entrepreneurs who now account for more than half of China's production; the swiftly climbing number of urban families who have bought their own apartments; and the millions of farmers whose croplands are increasingly coveted by real estate developers.

"This law speeds up our market economy development," said Chen Shu, a member of the National People's Congress and secretary general of the Guangzhou Lawyer's Association, who participated in drafting the legislation over the last several years.

Jiang Ping, a scholar who advised officials drawing up the law, said it is significant because it helps codify a property law system that has been evolving through regulation in recent years as the country moves away from socialism.

The final sentence in the quotation from the article is truly stunning. There have been monumental ideological battles over the past 90 years between socialism and free market capitalism, and the sincere wish of all who came of age during the Cold War was not that America would be forced to defeat these ideologies through armed conflict (while rightly making certain we could do so if necessary) but rather through friendship, shared economic interest, and internal changes within socialist nations. While this process was slow and often disparaged in the media, it wrought social upheaval in the former Soviet Union and its satellite states.

We are, perhaps, witnessing giant steps toward freedom and economic prosperity in China, and such legislative changes should be publicly recognized, praised, and rewarded by American political and corporate leaders. Momentum is critical to any political or social reform, and China's momentum is currently carrying it in the right direction.

China's Communist Party attempted to minimize media coverage of the debate on this issue, apparently out of fear that additional protections would be demanded too quickly by the Chinese people. The Communist desire to move slowly and pull tightly on the reins predictably resulted in more attention and support for the cause of property rights. According to the Post:

To muffle critics, Communist party censors had barred China's media from covering the disagreements. Gong's petition was ordered off the Internet, for instance, and the Beijing-based magazine Cai Jin was forbidden to distribute last week's issue because it contained discussion of the controversy.

The resulting irony was that the Communist party, having silenced its most faithfully Communist members at home, forced them to turn to foreign journalists to air their views, which then bounced back on foreign-based websites. At his book-lined Beijing University office, Gong was busy through the week receiving foreign television crews and newspaper correspondents.

Once a people tastes the sweet nectar of limited government and economic independence, it will no longer accept anything less. China appears to have recognized this and while seeking to apply controls to the pace of implementation, is allowing economic reality to lead it into what optimists are sure will be a bright future.