Try this
Posted on 09/07/2012 3:55:40 PM PDT by Kaslin
Back in 2008, during the peak illusory powers of Barack Obama as the post-partisan hopester-and-changer, the media consistently failed to report that the statist beliefs of the Democratic presidential nominee came straight from the socialist playbook. In many cases, the media probably didn't realize it themselves.
At the same time, though, there was, and is, a feeling that such labeling is taboo. Even after an October surprise of a question from "Joe the Plumber" prompted Candidate Obama to reveal his inner redistributionist -- "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama told "Joe" in 2008 -- the S-word was verboten.
I took issue with this taboo at the time, and even got called a "Red baiter" on national TV for asking whether Barack Obama would take the country "in a socialist direction."
The answer, of course, was yes: The state is more involved in our economy and lives than ever before, and not just because of Obamacare, which, of course, is a handy moniker for socialized medicine.
To be fair, the socialist direction is in no way a new direction for our country, which has, with only occasional pauses, been moving that way since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and his revolutionary socialist program, which we know, folksily, as the New Deal.
Even under Ronald Reagan, the federal government grew 3 percent. Obama's immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, is aptly described as a "corporate socialist Republican," as Michelle Malkin has long chronicled. Bush's saving grace for conservatives may be his signature tax cuts, but his political epitaph remains his socialistically twisted rationale for his "stimulus" plan known as TARP: "I abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."
Truth be told, for 80 years the debate in Washington between Democrats and Republicans has turned on how much government should run our lives, not whether government should run our lives in the first place.
Lately, that seems to be changing. Probably despite their better focus-group-driven judgment, the presidential candidates and the political parties they lead have suddenly emerged from the fuzz of euphemism to inject a rare clarity into election rhetoric.
Democrats believe: "The government is the only thing we all belong to." That's the bottom line of a video presentation at the Democratic National Convention this week. Republicans believe: "We don't belong to the government, the government belongs to us." That's the tweeted response to the Democrats' message by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
For two campaigns that try to avoid the terminology of ideology and philosophy -- as is usual in modern politics -- it doesn't get any clearer, any more "polarizing," than this. And that's a good thing. It divides the two political camps according to their distinguishing ideals: the idealization of state power (Democrats) vs. the idealization of individual rights (Republicans). It's statism vs. liberty.
Democrat keynote speaker Julian Castro, mayor of San Antonio, helped highlight the chasm separating the two parties when he referred to the individual success stories that were showcased at the Republican convention last week. "We all celebrate individual success," Castro said. "But the question is, how do we multiply that success? The answer is President Barack Obama."
For Democrats in the 21st century, the answer to everything is the state. Take the life stories Democrat convention speakers tell, particularly the immigrant success stories, which so many Americans -- even Republicans! -- can invoke. In the Democratic version, modest beginnings are emphasized (the more squalid the details, the better), and the American tradition of upward mobility is catalyzed by a government program and ultimately defined by winning or securing government office. The Democrats' message seems to be: If you work hard and vote Democrat, you can end up in government office, too!
The contrast to the Republican message couldn't be starker. In his "empty chair" monologue, which brilliantly crystallized GOP principles in 10 short minutes, Clint Eastwood put it this way: "I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that is very important. It is that you, we -- we own this country. We -- we own it. Politicians are employees of ours."
Soon, Americans will choose the country's political fate, which, particularly this time around, is also our own role in the future: subjects or citizens? For once, the choice couldn't be clearer.
Well, a vote for slightly less rampant socialism anyway.
Hurrah. Go corporatism.
GOD willing, a vote for Romney is a vote for sanity and some social healing in this great country.
Yep. I’m not voting FOR anyone this time around, I’m voting AGAINST. Only way I can do it.
RomneyCare.
I agree Jess.
I searched to find a Ryan 2012 bumper without someone else’s name on it.
I can’t fathom voting for that someone...so I’m going to vote for Ryan and against Bam. SIGH.
Let’s not go overboard - it’s not a vote against socialism it’s a vote against marxism/communism.
Think back...in what recent elections have you ever voted FOR someone? It seems as if its always turning out to be against the most evil for the lesser evil.
Both Hubert Humphrey and Joseph Stalin were “left of center” were they not? Which would you vote for if given the choice?
Actually, Obama and his people are open marxists, among themselves.
And their supporters don’t mind using the “socialist” word, among themselves.
They just get exercised if their political enemies use the word.
A vote for Romney is a vote for ANNOYING ROBOCALLING!!!
Hence the rise of the so-called "tea party". The rank and file GOP have forever called for limited government while their GOP party leaders keep shaving a few dollars off the Democrat agenda and calling it victory. Bleating on about tax cuts while the budget balloons and the regulatory agencies pile layers upon layers upon layers of red tape to do the simplest things. The rank and file are fed up... and yet the best we managed to do is to nominate Romney.
So, while I think its a matter of national survival to push Obama out of office, our work has only begun the day Romney takes office. We will have to fight every day to keep him from giving away the store.
The only choice in the upcoming is slavery or struggle.
Ive struggled all my life, it doesn't deter me.
But I will not be enslaved and if it comes to bullets........
I can cover up the name on the top of the ticket and vote for Ryan.
But I’m not going to pretend the guy on the top of the ticket isn’t a Socialist too.
The article title, “A Vote For Romney is a Vote Against Socialism” really can’t be true, when we know good and well from his history that Romney is a Socialist. He’s just the less virulent kind, with an (R) behind his name.
The truth is that “A Vote For Romney is a Vote for Somewhat Less Socialism.” It’s a matter of degree, like your hypothetical between Humphrey and Stalin, both leftists.
Yes, but Vice President Humphrey was pro-America, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-defense, pro-Life and believed in Capitalism, albeit with some government intervention. I’ll vote for that kind of candidate over an out-and-out Communist any day and twice on Sunday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.