A Vote For Romney is a Vote Against Socialism

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.

Thank you for the reply. I’ll be frank and honest with you. The following is not directed at you. It’s what I see in politics, federal and local.

I don’t like seeing vulgarities, hysteria, false accusations or promotions of panic in public political speech. Since most political people put the Clintons into office, the Democrats began more commonly using such speech. Now we see such speech from Republicans.

I will not vote in favor of the desires of socialists, NIMBYs, misogamists (those who hate families), heterophobics, malicious gossips, animal worshipers, bureaucrats, HOA queens, environmentalists, vulgar celebrities, social workers, planners, idle building inspectors, urchins, government school teachers, drug addicts, NGOs, those who desire to violate our Constitution, those who are traitorous against the USA in business, those who desire to violate our Bill of Rights or those wanting policies based on their false prophecies of overpopulation.

Let the new, bipartisan socialists gobble up all of that debt as quickly as possible. After they finish making their mess and beating each other up, we men will rebuild.

I don’t think FDR would. The man was an out and out socialist and was never exposed as he should have been, and would have been today.

But I agree with you regarding the sad state of affairs in the Republican Party. Though there are those here who would tell you that their goal isn’t necessarily to defeat Baraq. Not sure I buy into that, but I am quite sure that they don’t feel any special need to cater to their base through nominating arguably the worst candidate the party has ever fielded.

If Romney adheres to the party platform we will be touting him as better than Reagan. LOL Pigs would be flying.

With the coming election we have two realistic choices. the slow socialist, Romney being a Fabian socialist is willing to wait decades if necessary to bring us to his desired utopia. Then we have the fast socialist, Obama being a revolutionary Marxist communist wants his utopia next week and if you oppose that his solution is the two billion plus rounds of ammo he just purchased and is eager to use. So who are you going to vote for? personally I’m going for the slow socialist hoping that we will have enough time to get handcuffs on socialist thinking and chop off the monsters head.

Hubert Humphrey would probably be a Fred Thompson/Newt Gingrich type Republican today.

NO!!!! I met HH in 1967 he was dumb as a box of rocks and at the same time could speak for an hour without saying more than “my name is Hubert Horatio Humphrey” and “thank you” no context in an hour of words spewing from his mouth.

He would be a rino, he was Fabian through and through.

A guy I knew would get pissed when I said obama is a socialist. I showed him the cover of, I think it was time, that had a picture of obama and the cpation said “We’re all socialists now.” His reponse was “Well, they’re wrong.”

"RomneyCare and ObamaCare are both advances in socialism. It's pure and simple. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest."

Before you accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty", look up socialism in the dictionary. Then give me even one example of socialism by the state of Massachusetts in RomneyCare.

I will accept an argument of "statism" in RomneyCare, but not "socialism". In contrast, you will find numerous examples of socialism in Obamacare. Its fundamental intention is "single payer" medical care i.e. socialized medicine.

Your promiscuous use of the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" reflects negatively on your own intellectual honesty.

I've listened to numerous arguments with respect to "statism" vs "socialism". The distinction appears to lie in what people consider "in the community" and "in the state" (ie, can the state be considered a community and vice versa). And in the distinction between "ownership and control" as apposed to simply "control" (ie, do you really "own" something if you do not control it). If you want to join the group of those trying to make a chasm out of a fine line in order to show the RomneyCare is good and ObamaCare is bad, or that Obama is a socialist but Romney is not, feel free. I find the argument tenuous at best and intellectually dishonest, whether you find my use of that phrase "promiscuous" or not. Bottom line : does the policy legislated mandate that you lose control of capital you own which is then redistributed to another and spent "for the good of" the community/state as whole despite your personal objections to its intended purpose? Yes? Socialism.

You live in a country where federal law requires hospitals to give free treatment to individuals who can't afford it. That law went into effect while Reagan was president. I suppose that makes him a "socialist" too, under your definition. States can choose to deal with that law in different ways. Massachusetts chose to deal with it by mandating private insurance for those who "could afford" it. Other states simply charge more for the rest of the health care users. If you want to call Massachusetts socialist for doing that, don't let me stop you.

I certainly question your intelligence, though, if you call it "intellectually dishonest" when others chose to define it with more commonly accepted terms.

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.