Howard Dean, do you remember him at all...found an audience to share his new-found "public" fondness for socialism. Note, in the first video below, he says our capitalist tendencies arise from our "human nature," but our desire for socialism comes from our communitarianism. What? To Democrats today, capitalism is apparently a lone endeavor. Nevermind that capitalism actually employs people and pay wages from profits. If that isn't a "community" endeavor, I don't know what is. See two videos below - don't miss Margaret Thatcher comparing socialism and capitalism in the second.
Many organizations in this country have the word "Democracy" in the title. It's time to drop that like a hot potato. "Democracy" is used as a crutch by those not understanding that we are a Republic, that there is a vast difference between the two, and we lean on the moniker "democracy" at our peril.
We are not governed by a majority, and so it is ironic that Dean says we've decided to settle on a little socialism and a little capitalism. Is Howard Dean the decider? Will Democrats accomplish a little socialism, and then some more, because they are the majority - and as Pelosi and Obama have said - we won? Here's an example of how this works. On Dean's Democracy for America, he has an open letter for reader's to sign advocating the will of the majority over reason or a clear representation of constitutents:
Democratic Caucus AccountabilityCan you venture a guess at how a Congressman or Congresswoman might weight their choice: take a chance that voters will forget your vote, as they often do, by the time the election rolls around, or lose a coveted and powerful chairmanship. They'll choose the power of the committee room without a backward glance.
If ANY member of the Democratic Caucus joins a Republican filibuster of healthcare reform with a public option, the Caucus must immediately strip that Senator of all Committee chairmanships.
The Founding Fathers, with infinite wisdom obtained from life experience with kingdoms and parliaments, intended for as much power as possible be granted to, and retained by, each individual. There is no socialism to be found in this intent.
Howard Dean understands completely, however, and he and his cronies intend to use socialism, veiled as democracy, as a club against our republic.
Walter Williams, writing for Capitalism Magazine, reminds of us our Founder's views of democracy:
James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."From Walter Williams:
John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
And...Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
Our founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.As effortlessly as Howard Dean threw out the idea that America has decided to share capitalism with socialism, just as effortlessly are Liberals gaining momentum in stealing individual power.
From Bookworm, speaking about Germans in the 1920's, and writing for American Thinker:
They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world. It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state - and those who didn't buy in were coerced because of the state's unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand....
Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.Read more from Bookworm at Bookworm Room.
British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.
The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)
Just two years ago, this snippet from Howard Dean would have quickly followed him from Paris to a YouTube debut, but considering "socialism" as a reality, and maybe a better way forward, is a thought shared by many who really do believe that Obama has some stash to share with them.
Thanks to LeftCoastRebel