Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, Redux: In America, socialism used to be confined within certain...

In America, socialism used to be confined within certain boundaries; that was before last Sunday’s vote.

We are now beginning to enter the Kansas-Nebraska Act stage of our republic’s socialist crisis. At our constitutional founding, the evil of slavery was crudely evaded. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited the abomination north of 36°30' north latitude (about the middle of Missouri), was enacted.

But with the western push of the frontier, a new compromise was needed. So the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 decreed that the “popular sovereignty” of each territory should decide whether it would be a slave or a free state. Then, adherents of both the abomination and freedom migrated to Kansas to struggle — with their bodily presence — for their respective causes. First came politics. Then the political rhetoric turned violent. Then verbal violence turned to physical violence. Kansas became known as Bleeding Kansas. John Brown was the most famous person to apply unjustified, murderous violence to his righteous cause of ending slavery; he was hanged, but the Civil War ensued, because, as Lincoln sagely explained:

A House divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure; permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

Now we enter our history’s second stage in the struggle against the abomination of socialism. Just as slavery had been contained in the South, so entitlement socialism has, until this week, been more or less contained in service to only the poor and the elderly — and even those programs (for the elderly) operate on the principle of beneficiaries paying monthly premiums for the benefits they will later get (Medicare/Social Security). Only the poor, under Medicaid, received benefit without premium payment.

But now, just as the Kansas-Nebraska Act broke through the geographic limit to slave states, the Democratic party’s 2010 health-care law has broken the boundary that limited socialism. Now, the chains of socialism are to be clamped onto the able-bodied middle class — not merely retirees who have paid their insurance premiums and the presumed-helpless poor.

Even the New York Times — after the vote — admits what the bigger goal has been all along. In Wednesday’s edition (“In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality” by David Leonhardt), they point out: “Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan. . . . Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would ‘mark a new season in America.’ . . . Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer — what is the proper balance between the market and the government? — remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum.”

I thank the New York Times for that honest statement of historic fact.

For example, the new law takes away from insurance companies the right to charge for insurance based on actuarial risk — which is the essence of insurance. Now they will charge what the politicians tell them to charge — and pay such benefits as the politicians order them to pay. They may, for a while, make money, but that will be at the sufferance of the politicians. One may call this mere regulation, but it is regulation to such a degree that it constitutes effective ownership of the insurance company. The former equity holders in such companies are now merely nominal owners. Also, the new law provides for taxes on investment income to pay for socialized health care, sucking out the lifeblood of our economy to the deathbeds of the destitute.

When these intrusions are combined with 1) the nationalization of GM and Chrysler, 2) the partial nationalization of the banks, 3) the establishment of trillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded slush funds (the stimulus package and TARP), and 4) the planned ten-year, $10 trillion expansion of government debt (which steals from our children and grandchildren dollars yet unmade by them to pay foreign debt holders), the center of gravity of our economy moves from the private sector to the public sector.

And just as the free states could not tolerate the spread of slavery into their midst, so, too, free middle-class America — if it still has its historic character — will not tolerate the yoke of socialism being put upon their necks.

First, the unambiguous will of the majority was defied by the vote of Congress last Sunday.

Come November, we shall see whether the system can still turn the popular will of the majority into legislative will. If it can, all will be well and the crisis will end. Rallying the vote between now and November is roughly equivalent to the early stage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act period — people started migrating to Kansas to support their convictions.

But come November, if the majority will — which opposes the socializing of health-care delivery and its associated government intrusions — is denied its expression by the corrupt bargains and constitutional distortions of Washington, then, for the second time in our history, we will enter that dangerous period when the House resolves its temporary division. Let us devoutly pray — and commit to ourselves — that this time freedom shall be reacquired . . . peaceably.

— Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. © 2010 Creators.com.

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.