The Socialist Slow Dance

 

As conservatives we accept the fact that people are flawed, often fatally so, but we also understand that people are capable of greatness.  The system of governance we embrace values personal liberty and independence over any concentration of authority.  It relies upon the virtue, kindness and charity of those who flourish to care for those in need.  We also know that power; that is the ability to limit liberty and take property, lies inherently with those in charge of any government and thus, we must dilute and limit the mandates, powers and levers of government.  If we do not, those in charge of government will eventually succumb to temptation and promote expansion of the state and their authority, leading inevitably to tyranny.

Capitalism, by itself, did not bring about the great development of the United States of America.  Capitalism, an inherently decentralized economic model that mirrors our decentralized model of political authority, combined with liberty, limited governance, rule of law and property rights, plus human innovation and endeavor, together led to our country’s amazing rise.  We are, in fact, an exceptional nation, by every conceivable measure, the richest, most powerful and most generous nation that has ever existed in history.

Socialism, on the other hand, is antithetical to limited governance and decentralized economic activity.  It means, quite literally, the nationalization of industry, as in today’s call for nationalized health care.  In a socialist system, a central government must first sit in judgement taking the so called spoils of capitalism from one citizen and giving it to another for no reason other than the certitude that that’s what should be done.  Virtue, kindness and charity are stripped of their resources so that the overarching state can play its arbitrary, institutional version of Robin Hood.  The free market suffers, collapses and the centralized government becomes owner, manager and paymaster for all endeavor.

But that is not the worst of socialism.  The socialist assumption is that it is fair (and capitalism is not) and the most equitable form of governance.  And yet, everywhere that it has been tried, in whole or in part, it has slowed human progress, caused misery and deprivation and eventually, failed abjectly.  Socialism eventually turns to totalitarianism.  Why?  Because as it fails, people revolt and oppose the state.  The centralized government must then further repress its people to retain its authority.  This can go on for a very, very long time.

Our country is on the edge of the first stage of socialism, the nationalization of industry and redistribution stage.  Believe what these Democrat presidential candidates are saying; they are true believers.  And they know that promises of free health care, free child care, free college, debts forgiven, reparations paid, etc. are enticing to those who want to believe in the myth of the benevolent socialist state.

Know that capitalism and conservatism together have allowed us to thrive.  And yet, there are those who would like to fundamentally change that and they are building quite a following.  Conservatives, who oppose them, who perceive their proposals correctly not as transformative, but as very real threats to our republic, are demonized and marginalized.  Make no mistake.  This is a socialist revolution being slow danced to the tune of false and cynical promises.  Conservatives are the opposition in this revolution.

Socialism can never be compatible with our founding principles, has resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions in my lifetime, and in it, humankind will never thrive.  We cannot let it take further root here, for our own sake and the sake of this great experiment in human liberty, the United States of America.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 11 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    I saw a report tonight , can’t remember where, Americans spent more on taxes than , food, shelter and health care combined. I think we have already lost the battle.

    • #1
  2. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Doug,

    We might all do well to read up on Fabian Socialism. Disaster need not come all at once. Like a dam whose wall slowly develops cracks then finally succumbs to the water’s pressure and the flood ensues, so might a false ideology be perpetrated slowly. Of course, if what we believe is true then the end result will be the same. Complete economic collapse followed by the totalitarian need to use force to maintain control.

    Now is the time to have this discussion. We should not wait until the deep cracks have formed.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #2
  3. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Doug’s column captures very well the beliefs and values of some of us Ricochetti, me included.  It’s why we fight.

    • #3
  4. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Outstanding post.

    • #4
  5. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    The loss of intact extended families and delayed or avoided marriage probably strongly coincides with the drift left.  Not to be overly reliant on stereotypes, but there are a lot of young women for whom the Obamyth about the Life of Julia is pretty spot-on politically.

    A married woman with private health insurance, solid household income, some savings, extended family support in times of crisis, and nice housing knows that socialism means higher taxes in return for conditions inferior to her status quo.  I find it a bit scary how single young women of my acquaintance (even with strong incomes) would happily marry the federal government in exchange for more material security.  The precedent was set more than 5o years ago when ill-conceived welfare policies actually encouraged poor women to choose federal dependence rather than reliance on a husband from the same marginal socioeconomic class.  With Obamacare, free tuition and more free stuff, the dependency pitch to females is moving up the income ladder.

    A self-reliance/freedom/entrepreneurship pitch simply does not resonate with many young single women.  Also, to some divorced women, it may sound like the kind of thing the ex-husband said was the reason why he was never home.  And a freedom agenda may seem like a fearful hate crime to newly minted snowflakes of both (all?) sexes.

    I am not sure how to promote the kind of optimism, courage, and confidence that a free society requires to survive.

    • #5
  6. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Great article.  I was thinking recently as I went through Ricochet, that folks here seemed to be focusing increasingly, more consistently, in one way or another,  on the very topic with the same insights about where it inevitably leads.  The question was how many of you exist and what do you do about it?

    • #6
  7. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Doug Kimball: As conservatives we accept the fact that people are flawed, often fatally so, but we also understand that people are capable of greatness.

    Sounds like you’re referring to Trump . . .

    But yes, super post!

    • #7
  8. D. B. Robinson Member
    D. B. Robinson
    @DBRobinson

    The only statement I’d argue with is “Our country is on the edge of the first stage of socialism.” That ship has sailed.

    • #8
  9. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Stad (View Comment):
    Stad

    Doug Kimball: As conservatives we accept the fact that people are flawed, often fatally so, but we also understand that people are capable of greatness.

    Sounds like you’re referring to Trump . . .

    I know you’re making a joke.  But unfortunately we’ve got a lot of folks who actually read that way.

    It’s not possible to have an intelligent discussion when people alter every sentence you write in their minds so that it agrees with what they’ve decided you must think.

    Before hitting the “send” button, we all need to do this quality check:

    1. Re-read your reply
    2. Ask yourself “What statements have I claimed the other person made?”
    3. Re-read the article or comment to see what the person actually said.
    4. If the person never wrote (or implied) what you said (or implied) he did, then stop.  Don’t send your comment.
    • #9
  10. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    The loss of intact extended families and delayed or avoided marriage probably strongly coincides with the drift left. Not to be overly reliant on stereotypes, but there are a lot of young women for whom the Obamyth about the Life of Julia is pretty spot-on politically.

    A married woman with private health insurance, solid household income, some savings, extended family support in times of crisis, and nice housing knows that socialism means higher taxes in return for conditions inferior to her status quo. I find it a bit scary how single young women of my acquaintance (even with strong incomes) would happily marry the federal government in exchange for more material security. The precedent was set more than 5o years ago when ill-conceived welfare policies actually encouraged poor women to choose federal dependence rather than reliance on a husband from the same marginal socioeconomic class. SNIP

    A self-reliance/freedom/entrepreneurship pitch does not resonate with many young single women. Also, to some divorced women, it may sound like the kind of thing the ex-husband said was the reason why he was never home. And a freedom agenda may seem like a fearful hate crime to newly minted snowflakes of both (all?) sexes.

    I am not sure how to promote the kind of optimism, courage, and confidence that a free society requires to survive.

    As someone who for 2 years took part in an AFDC lifestyle, with monthly governmental checks sent to me each month, I feel the need to point out that what freed me from this cycle of both poverty and governmental dependence was one Pres Ronald Reagan.

    He had had his number crunchers figure out, while he was still governor of Calif, that some 65% of all AFDC recipients had a missing partner who was possibly working and making big bucks and not contributing to the household that he (or she) had helped create.

    A big legal stumbling block was that the single parent could not usually sue for child support and receive that support if they lived in a state other than the one where the missing parent resided.

    Reagan fixed all this. Unfortunately the Democrats now state it happened under Bill Clinton, but that is yet another lie told by the libs. Although I did not have the wisdom to vote for Reagan, his actions in 1984 helped me out immensely. No longer did I have to chose between a government paycheck and its guaranteed income, and a career path. Now I had child support plus the wages from any job I chose to take.

    The Big Lie that the Dems insist on telling and re-telling is that they care about the working poor. Oh, they do. They care about giving a poor person just enough to keep them on the plantation, stressed out and willing to vote for them. Reagan cared about me enough to get me off that plantation and into the real, more secure world.

    • #10
  11. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    As someone who for 2 years took part in an AFDC lifestyle, with monthly governmental checks sent to me each month, I feel the need to point out that what freed me from this cycle of both poverty and governmental dependence was one Pres Ronald Reagan.

    He had had his number crunchers figure out, while he was still governor of Calif, that some 65% of all AFDC recipients had a missing partner who was possibly working and making big bucks and not contributing to the household that he (or she) had helped create.

    A big legal stumbling block was that the single parent could not usually sue for child support and receive that support if they lived in a state other than the one where the missing parent resided.

    Reagan fixed all this. Unfortunately the Democrats now state it happened under Bill Clinton, but that is yet another lie told by the libs. Although I did not have the wisdom to vote for Reagan, his actions in 1984 helped me out immensely. No longer did I have to chose between a government paycheck and its guaranteed income, and a career path. Now I had child support plus the wages from any job I chose to take.

    The Big Lie that the Dems insist on telling and re-telling is that they care about the working poor. Oh, they do. They care about giving a poor person just enough to keep them on the plantation, stressed out and willing to vote for them. Reagan cared about me enough to get me off that plantation and into the real, more secure world.

    What an outstanding personal testimony to the work of Reagan and to the American values he fought to uphold!  Thanks, CarolJoy.

    • #11
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.