the whitestick papers

looking at politics from a different perspective

Posts Tagged ‘socialism

The lesser of two evils…

leave a comment »

It is perhaps the most frustrating of choices; to look on the ballot and try to pick the candidate you dislike the least.  Is there no one you can soundly support or are you forced to vote for one person because you’re determined to vote against their opponent?

The fact is, no matter who you vote for, you’re always voting for the lesser of two evils.

There are a couple of reasons for this, both of which trace back to basic human nature.  The first reality is that everyone is flawed.  Some more than others, of course, but the fact is no one is perfect.  This is true for everyone and seems to be particularly true for those who seek political office.

The second factor flows from this; power corrupts.  Those who seek political office often seek that power and, with it, the inevitable corruption.  Some resist more than others, but it taints everyone.

Taking into account that you will always vote for the person who, to you, is the lesser of two evils, let’s apply that to the current Presidential race.  Either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be elected in November.   Sure; there are those who hope others might but, unless you’re completely deluded, even the most loyal follower of one of the “also ran” candidates has to admit that.

Your choice comes down to someone who might be less than what you’d prefer but, in general, agrees with you on many, if not most, points.  Mitt Romney embodies the value of a free market, the necessity of a reduced government and the economic ruin caused by a runaway deficit.  He shows he understands that the country’s greatness has been built by people, not the government.

Or you can vote for a person who has demonstrated a total commitment to Keynesian economics, anti-colonial loathing of America and a willingness to reward some and punish others both domestically and as a foreign policy.  Barack Obama told the Russian President he would do even more in a second term and, since he wouldn’t have to deal with another re-election, he easily could.  Is that what you want?

To vote for someone else or to not vote is to let Obama win by default.  For a person of principle, who wants a restoration of American liberty and rule of law, the only logical choice is to go with the one who could turn things around.  Even though flawed, Romney is more likely to stop the current devolution than to continue, much less accelerate it.

Sure, Romney’s not perfect.

Who is?

Advertisements

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

13 September 2012 at 8:21 am

Romney: Obama’s “Mini Me”?

with one comment

Repeatedly over the past few months, Liberty Movement members – the name supporters of perennial minority Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul give themselves – have derided Republican nominee Mitt Romney as virtually indistinguishable from Barack Hussein Obama.  Pointing to the government health care program instituted on his watch in Massachusetts and quoting his statement that he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it, they claim Romney’s very nearly as progressive as the President, and not someone lovers of liberty should support.

It’s not the intention of this article to defend Mitt Romney; he’s said what he’s said and has to live with the consequences.  It’s also not the intent to convince the Liberty Movement that Romney is something other than what he is.  The intent is to look more closely at the differences between his ideology and that of President Obama, investigating, however briefly, the question of whether Mitt Romney is merely a scaled down version of the current inhabitant of the White House.

Whatever else Wendell Mitt Romney might be, he’s a businessman.  More to the point, he’s a capitalist, familiar with and an advocate of the free market, both in word and deed.  While the Democrats demagogue his connection to Bain Capital, everything about that relationship reflects an understanding and appreciation for letting the market, not government, determine winners and losers.  To paraphrase a line from Game of Thrones, “In the game of business you either win or you go bankrupt.”

This is, at its core, the fundamental fact of American success as a nation; of American economic strength even in the face of progressive efforts to win the hearts (and votes) of the citizenry using snares disguised as safety nets.  And it means that, whatever progressive tendencies Romney has, they are incidental; they’re a political addition, and not necessarily part of his core belief structure – his ideological DNA, if you will.

By contrast, Barack Obama is unquestionably a socialist.  At the same time, he’s not a typical socialist; he’s done and said things that are at odds with most American socialists.  There’s his aversion to the American flag; declining, in that famous photo from the 2008 election, to salute it even as other socialists on the stage did so, and it’s removal from his press room and Oval Office.  There’s his catering to Occupy Wall Street, his bowing to leaders of other countries, his apologizing for America.  There’s no other socialist in the national political spectrum that have gone to this level, and it reveals something key about the man.

The recent documentary book and subsequent movie, 2016: Obama’s America, in turn largely based on Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From My Father, builds a strong case for the President being a different sort of socialist.  It shows that, for the President, socialism is a means to an end; the fulfillment of an ideological commitment to the overturning of the world’s last colonial power.

Rare here in the United States, and even virtually unknown in Europe, anti-colonialism is common in third world nations like Obama’s father’s native Kenya.  It’s prevalent in Indonesia, where “Barry” spent his formative years and in Hawaii, where he lived with his activist grandparents.   Obama’s mother was enamored of his father, an anti-colonialist polygamist, and left her second husband after he began adopting capitalist ideas.

Anti-colonial ideology blames every problem and ill on the colonial masters, and there’s a lot of abuse that’s taken place under colonial rule to justify that point of view.  However, unlike the American Founders, anti-colonialists don’t want just independence from the “mother country”; they want it driven out and all its influences destroyed.  In this scenario, the United States is the last – and, possibly, the most evil – of the colonial powers.

So, America needs to apologize for its past and current colonial efforts.  It needs to recognize and even bow before those who have overthrown their colonial masters and established their own rule.  Its symbols are offensive and shameful, not promoted publically and proudly.  And, most of all, its ability to be a colonial master must be undercut, and the best way to do that is by ruining its economy and increasing its debt.

You don’t have to change your mind about Mitt Romney’s supposed similarity to Barack Obama.  You do, however, need to consider the difference.  You’ll make your own choice as to what’s really important to you; the parallel or the disparity.

See the movie.  Read the book.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

4 September 2012 at 11:39 am

Wrapped in golden chains

leave a comment »

If you’re old enough, the title of this article strikes a chord wherever it is that memories of the early 1970’s still live and triggers the sounds of Creedence Clearwater Revival (or, as we came to know them, CCR).  In his tribute to the generation’s coming out party, Woodstock, John Fogerty ‘s Who’ll Stop the Rain included a cryptic couplet that clearly refers to government, a popular target of the day.  The complete set of lyrics goes:

Five year plans and new deals, Wrapped in golden chains.
And I wonder, Still I wonder Who’ll stop the rain.

The references are pretty clear; “five year plans” were the hallmark of the Soviet Union under the domination of communism, and the New Deal was the chief feature of progressive US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s effort to combat the Great Depression.  But how are these tied together, much less “wrapped in golden chains”?

I don’t know whether or not Fogerty had it in mind, but there is a clear connection and significance, not only to the 1970’s but to today.

Beck in the 1920 and 1930’s, those Americans who championed the benefits of communist politics and socialist economics discovered they were a tough sell to the good citizens of the United States.  So, instead of using those terms, they hit upon the term “progressive” to describe their views; after all, in an era marked by two depressions separated by one of the greatest periods of growth in American history, who could possibly be against progress?

Later, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, that term wouldn’t have quite the positive spin it used to, so they started using the term “liberal” to describe how they wanted people to live.  Lately, that term has also started getting a bad taste to it, so they’ve gone back to “progressive”, but, no matter how it’s labeled, at its core the point of view is still socialist.

The bottom line of progressive thought is that the government – particularly with them in charge – knows what’s best for the people.  That’s the point of five-year plans; you can’t trust the people to know what’s best to produce or what crops to grow.  It needs the wisdom and oversight of the experts to make sure it gets done right.  The food shortages, long lines waiting to buy necessities and invariably poor quality machinery and other goods demonstrate just how well that worked out.

The New Deal was supposed to improve everyone’s lives, giving people jobs and hope again.   Truth be told, it did help the national infrastructure, but the Keynesian economic model it was based on assumed that work paid for by the US taxpayer was just as valuable as that provided by industry or agriculture.  As a result, men would dig holes in the morning that other men would fill in that afternoon.  Nothing was produced except a couple of paychecks, and that from the profitable efforts of other people.

The problem with government control, like five-year plans, or provision of jobs, like the New Deal, is that it comes at a cost.  Government, by its very nature, can’t produce anything.  It has to rely on its people to produce something so it can take part of it to do its job.  So, whenever it decides what its people can and can’t produce; when it spends more than it takes in; when it takes more and more in taxes, it takes liberty away from its citizens.  Sure, what they get may look good, and some people might even prefer the luxury of living in substandard conditions so they don’t have the responsibility to produce all that much, but even golden chains are still chains.

The problem is that progressive thinking has gotten into the water, so to speak, of government at all levels and with government officials of all types and political affiliation.  Any time an elected official tells you this program or that assistance for the poor, needy, hungry or whatever is a really good thing, they’re showing progressive colors.  That’s exactly the sort of often well-meaning but in the end self-serving destructive fad John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and the like recognized as tyranny.

Is it any wonder Barack Hussein Obama and his cohorts in the US House and Senate believe they need to pass a healthcare package the majority of Americans believe is wrong?  They, after all, know better than we do what we need, and no one is going to stand in their way of giving it to us.

“See how the gold glitters so nicely?  Wouldn’t you like to wear these chains?”

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

26 February 2010 at 5:07 pm

Posted in Basics

Tagged with , , , , ,

Dr. Krauthammer at the Center for the American Experiment

leave a comment »

Dr. Charles Krauthammer

Dr. Charles Krauthammer recently spoke to the Center for the American Experiment.  He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate.  He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults.  He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views.  He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing.  He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.

An attendee reports the entire room was held spellbound during his tal and has summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally.  He reports that even two Democrats at his table agreed with everything he said!  He gave permission – even encouragement – to forward what was said

Summary of Dr. Krauthammer’s comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual.  He is not to be underestimated.  He is a cool customer who doesn’t show his emotions.  It’s very hard to know what’s behind the mask.  The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment.  The Clintons still do not understand what hit them.  Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2.  Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton.  He has a way of making you think he’s on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite.  Pay no attention to what he says ; rather, watch what he does !

3.  Obama has a ruthless quest for power.  He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism.  He can’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along.  He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society.  He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

4. His three main goals are to control energy, public education, and national health care by the Federal government.  He doesn’t care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus.  The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth.  Paying for FREE college education is his goal.  Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it free and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof.  The only way to control costs is with massive rationing of services, like in Canada .

5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types.  No one around him has ever even run a candy store.  But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries.  This obviously can’t work in the long run.  Obama is not a socialist; rather he’s a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left..  Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world.  He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas.  He sees moral equivalency in all cultures.  His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors.  This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He is now handing out goodies.  He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012.  He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future.  He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong.  Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him.  Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party.  Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage.  Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future.  We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state’s rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous.  We are spending trillions that we don’t have.  This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse.  No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity.  The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda.  But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus package.  These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above..

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman Brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome.  The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally.  Any Democrat would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10 %, Republicans will be swept back into power.  If it’s under 8%, the Democrats continue to roll. If it’s between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight.  It will all be about the economy.  I hope this gets you really thinking about what’s happening in Washington and Congress.  There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance.  The work will be hard, but we’re right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it’s far too late.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

6 January 2010 at 9:28 am

%d bloggers like this: