Some Republicans are closet socialists? *Gasp*
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd ~ Bertrand Russell
Congress is not full of socialists, neither on the Democratic or the Republican side, are there a few that might qualify as supporting socialistic beliefs? Yes, but seriously, very few people that go out there and make these claims that the stimulus bill takes the United States in the direction of socialism have actually read the bill and they are also forgetting what a Republican President did and what Republican Congress members have allowed/supported to happen.
If anyone actually read the Newsweek article that the Blade shows the cover of, it states a few things of interest:
There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.
We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.
The Newsweek piece goes on to point out:
Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton’s end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don’t trust government and still don’t want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and “liberal” an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff’s stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.
If what Arlen Specter stated is true it creates some interesting speculation on how many of these “Republican socialists” are out there:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama’s stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.
“When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today,” said Specter, “one of my colleagues said, ‘Arlen, I’m proud of you.’ My Republican colleague said, ‘Arlen, I’m proud of you.’ I said, ‘Are you going to vote with me?’ And he said, ‘No, I might have a primary.’ And I said, ‘Well, you know very well I’m going to have a primary.’”
Specter, along with centrist Maine Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, joined with Democrats last week to move the stimulus bill forward. Specter said he doubted there would be any more Republican votes than those three Friday night.
“I think there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation,” he said.
The Democratic Party played the game a different way with the war in Iraq, even though a good number of Democrats in the House and Senate voted to give the President the original power to go to war, and continued to vote to fund it, while publicly making it appear that their party was the “anti-Iraq war” party. While there has been much focus on how none of the House Republicans voted for the stimulus bill, they were not needed to pass it. In the Senate, they were needed and three Republicans were found. This is nothing new, some seem to have already forgotten “The Gang of 14.” The number of elected Democrats in the House gives the Republicans options the ones in the Senate do not have.
Or of course you can believe that they are now magically concerned about returning to their fiscal conservative roots, but I doubt any of them that against this stimulus bill are willing to state they do not want the areas they represent to benefit from the stimulus money…The Democrats took full advantage of this during their days as the minority, it’s unrealistic to expect the Republicans to act any differently. That would mean, change really did happen in DC…
Lisa Renee,
You may be right, but possibly not in the way that you think. In fact, the government is showing some rather dramatic socialist tendencies, and has been for a number of years. You are correct however in saying that the same kinds of policies occur under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
Democrats seem these days to be marching in lockstep to ever increasing government size and control; while Republicans, in their urge to seek compromise, usually seem to only seeking to slow the pace of that growth.
We are in fact however, moving to or already have government controlled: retirement, education, and health care. Sooner or later, that increased control will require additional revenue to feed it and government will take from those who have to give to those who need.
The bureaucracy that gains in size and strength regardless of the party in power does not care, and seeks only to expand its power, influence, and control; not caring about anything but growing. Our freedoms and the goals of the Founding Fathers take a pretty good beating in this “March of Progress” however.
Everything that you cite in this article does nothing to disprove the march to socialism by our government, it merely identifies it correctly as a bi-partisan effort.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:35 pmGovernment as well as culture goes in cycles, that’s something that has historically been demonstrated time and time again. The issue here is that while some Conservatives and Republicans are trying to label Democrats and this President as socialistic, it is exactly as the Newsweek article points out and what you are saying, a trend that both parties are responsible for. That we as a voting population are also responsible for.
You can’t demand the government get more involved in your life then be surprised when that creates larger government, that is something many appear to not realize. Or perhaps they don’t want to because that then ruins their public statements and would make them have to take personal/political responsibility.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:42 pmI’d also point out that if true socialism was the goal, many of the items in this stimulus bill would not exist as well as previous governmental actions, the essence of socialism is the government owning then giving jobs, homes, etc. Instead of 700 billion to banks, Wall Street and the Mortgage companies, the government would take over complete ownership, instead of bail outs to the Big Three, the government would take ownership of them, instead of tax credits to those able to buy homes and new cars, the government would dole out housing and transportation to people. Instead of offering energy credits to homeowners, government would own the energy companies and the homes. That would be true socialism.
While it has been argued that placing requirements on government funding gives the government in essence a part of the “ownership” abilities, this is still a free market scenario where none of these companies are forced to take the money. If they do not agree to the conditions, they merely refuse the money. That is not socialism…
Is providing health care socialism? That can also be debated since a Universal Health care plan is in place in many nations. If you as an example consider Canada to be a socialist nation, some would disagree with that.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:55 pmLisa Renee,
As you point out, government is now taking some level of ownership in the groups that it bails out. And while none of these companies has yet been forced to take the money, no wait that’s not right, the government was forcing banks that didn’t want it to take money…
Is creating a government oversight group to determine what is “cost effective” health care socialism, yes. Is forcing people in Canada or England to wait for medical procedures that they would gladly pay for themselves if the government would ‘allow’ them to do so socialism, yes.
If Congress thought so much of Social Security and this universal health care plan, why have they exempted themselves from participation?
All journeys begin with a single step, and the path to socialism in this country will likewise (if it occurs) be incremental.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:16 pmTim, I don’t recall any banks saying, “No we don’t want your money” what they stated from my understanding was they were not happy with the conditions or the regulatory procedures being discussed as being put in place.
We allowed Congress to create the two tiered system, where they are exempt, which is another demonstrative point to the non-socialism aspect of our nation. We do have a consistent pattern of the “haves and the have nots” where everything from medical care to education to access to legal representation is not based on need but based on the ability to pay.
If people want all of these governmental programs/regulatory procedures/processes/safety nets, then logic dictates the money will have to come from somewhere. Eventually the federal deficit will have to be addressed and that will be the deciding point where it is determined how truly “socialistic” we want our nation to become. All we are basically doing is playing a shell game with money, giving money to states and cities that require a balanced budget, while allowing the federal deficit to grow. Hoping that it will grow the economy enough to generate more income to be able to address the deficit costs, if it doesn’t? Then things will get interesting…
February 15th, 2009 at 1:58 pmTim, as an aside, I have no idea what’s triggering your posts to go into moderation, I’m looking into that.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pmI don’t really think the Blade, or Newsweek for that matter are qualified to objectively report on politics anymore.
That said, President Bush did compromise core Republican beliefs in the bank bailout. What I heard him say was that in times of crisis sometimes all you have in front of you is a choice of bad responses. He chose what he felt was the least damaging of those choices. What Congress left out was any accountability and you see those banks who behaved badly and created much of the crisis, take that money with no oversight and behave badly with it. No big surprise. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
The Republicans have a problem with the stimulus package because it is not a part of a capitalist society for government to have ownership or a financial interest in private enterprise.
That’s it, the long and the short of it. Republicans are SUPPOSED to be all about smaller government and greater personal liberties for the people.
Now, I don’t actually know any Republicans in office at this point in time who are staying true to the parties core principals. And they’re out numbered. So, what the President and Democratic Congress choose to do is what will happen.
And since the ‘emergency stimulus’ package is predominantly actually government spending and won’t BE spent for years, it can hardly be called an emergency stimulus package. It’s the wish list of the Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. Because it’s their turn.
Now they’ll be accountable for the results.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:18 pmWell, socialism is not limited to just the idea of gov’t ownership/control of particular industries.
At the heart of socialism is the idea of “the final reality is materialism”, that “man(kind) is the measure of all things”, and that “the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.”
Everything from law, economics, education, science, medicine, dignity and value of human life then becomes relativistic and arbitrary because reality is what any individual wants it to be.
(see this reference http://www.peopleforlife.org/francis.html)
February 15th, 2009 at 2:54 pmAn interesting column on the same Newsweek article:
http://townhall.com/columnists/RichTucker/2009/02/13/spurning_the_siren_call_of_socialism?page=full&comments=true
It agrees with many of the points, but draws different conclusions as a result.
Have Republicans in DC (and elsewhere) contributed to the problem? Definitely. My hope is that their newly-rediscovered attention to fiscal prudence/free markets is a result of the complaints that came from their base during the last election. (I can hope.)
I’d rather have them recognize the error of their ways and stop than continue along the wrong path just so that they don’t have to defend themselves from the charge of a lack of consistency…
February 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pmJay, I read the piece you linked from the “Christian Manifesto” but I don’t see where that piece refers to the true definition of socialism which is the natural enemy of religion. Francis Shaeffer was talking more about secular humanism, not socialism.
While I am not a secular humanist, I’d suggest that knowing some that are, they would dispute much of what the late Francis Shaeffer penned.
Maggie, I had read that piece when it came out, I think it was lined on Real Clear Politics, but thank you for sharing it. Tucker really did not focus much on the Republican responsibility factor in this stimulus bill as well as the past ones beyond a slight mention.
The reality is most of the good and the bad that has come out of DC has been done by both parties, while they do an excellent job in sparring sound bites the party in power gets more of the blame than the one not in power while both contribute. We saw this happen during the Bush presidency both under a Republican and a Democratic majority. We see this happen here in the State and at a local level, where one person or one party takes the blame when a more honest view would be there is plenty of blame and responsibility to go around. There are very few instances when one party can do something in government without the support of another one, while of course they don’t admit that.
Using the term “socialism” as a way to generate fear that we are heading in that direction with government taking over did not work as an attempt to dissuade people for voting for Obama. As was pointed out several times during the political campaigning, real socialists did not support Obama nor agree with a majority of his policies/campaign promises.
In this scenario we have three Senate Republicans who voted for the stimulus package, because three votes were needed. If Specter is being true and accurate, it’s clear that others agreed with him but were happy to allow him and the two others to vote for the stimulus bill. They did not have the political courage to vote for it. Which again directly relates to the herd mentality factor.
Conjuring up the vision of socialism as the “enemy” creates the attempt to rally that portion of the “herd” against “the evil” which in this case is purported to be socialism. It avoids the “herd” from engaging in any self reflection or taking any responsibility for what has happened. It’s the fault of someone else, they were against it and it happened through no fault of their own. Or that’s what they’d like us to believe…
As stated previously, a good example of this being done has been the Democratic Party and the war in Iraq. They perfectly used the herd mentality to make it appear as if they had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. My belief is that both parties are very similar, they have become too focused on the actual power, getting it back or keeping it.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:04 pmSocialism and smaller government aren’t just about government spending. Republicans have been arguing (particularly since 9/11) that we have no right to privacy or a trial. They argue that the government has the right to pick up any American citizen anywhere in the world (including the U.S.) and hold them indefinitely without trial, put them in front of a military tribunal and put to death without so much as talking to a lawyer.
Republicans argue that you have no right to a private conversation or a private residence. If anyone in the government suspects you of anything, they want the right to listen to your conversations and rummage through your house without a warrant and without oversight. But, but, but… liberals want big government!
It’s Republicans who want to regulate what you can do with your body, what type of sex you can have in your own bed room and who you can marry. But, but, but… liberals want big government!
Liberals and Republicans have a vastly different view of what “big government” is.
February 15th, 2009 at 5:17 pmLisaRenee wrote:
I believe you would find lots of people who agree with this sentiment…
As an aside – there could probably be a rather interesting and lengthy discussion about the ‘fear’ of socialism as used by a campaign versus the ‘fear’ of socialism once the American public begins to see some of the ’scary socialist-tending policies’ (as they were described during the campaign) in effect…
February 15th, 2009 at 6:04 pmFor 8 years we tolerated fear tactics and monumental incompetence and now we are not willing to give a new administration 8 weeks to plot a course to overcome those results. How easily we forget how we got in this mess! While talk show host, military industries, and the “Fair and Balanced” make millions continually dividing us by fear tactics, it appears that American freedom has enemies within and without. Substitute the word communism for the labels attached to those who want a better and more transparent America and we are back in the McCarthy days. Yes there is blame to go around but I will still opt for the lessor of the two evils. Fear tactics and the peddlers of these tactics do more harm than good to America while making millions spitting into the mike and trying to convince us that they have the interest of America at heart.
“rabble-rouser Show phonetics noun [C]
a person who makes speeches that make people excited or angry, especially in a way that causes them to act as the person wants them to” or needs them to so that they can make millions.
Do you see who supported McCarthy then and who supports the fear mongers today?
“those that do not remember history are destined to repeat it.” Is this Deja Vu all over again?
“Popular support for McCarthyism
Flier issued in May 1955 by the Keep America Committee urging readers to “fight communistic world government” by opposing public health programs
McCarthyism was supported by a variety of groups, including the American Legion, Christian fundamentalists and various other organizations.
Although far-right radicals were the bedrock of support for McCarthyism, they were not alone. A broad “coalition of the aggrieved” found McCarthyism attractive, or at least politically useful. Common themes uniting the coalition were opposition to internationalism, particularly the United Nations; opposition to social welfare provisions, particularly the various programs established by the New Deal; and opposition to efforts to reduce inequalities in the social structure of the United States.[37]
This viewpoint led to major collisions between McCarthyite radicals and supporters of public health programs, most notably in the case of the Alaska Mental Health Bill controversy of 1956.[38]
In addition, as Richard Rovere points out, many ordinary Americans became convinced that there must be “no smoke without fire” and lent their support to McCarthyism. In January 1954, a Gallup poll found that 50% of the American public supported McCarthy, while only 29% had an unfavorable opinion of the senator. Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of the United States, commented that if the United States Bill of Rights had been put to a vote it probably would have been defeated.”
February 16th, 2009 at 1:28 amHere’s a press release from republican congress critter John L. Mica who voted AGAINST the stimulus package…
http://www.house.gov/mica/Stimulus%20HS%20Rail.shtml
It says “Funding for transit projects in the stimulus package could accelerate the Central Florida Commuter Rail project”
February 16th, 2009 at 10:41 am“Sadly, No!” published a handy checklist to help the “journalists” over at Newsweek determine if Obama is a socialist:
Does he
Call for the immediate incarceration/execution of all hedge fund managers because they are “enemies of the people”?
Demand that all CEOs be fired so that all companies can be run by democratically elected employee representatives from each sector of a company’s business (bonus points if he calls those representative councils “Soviets”)?
Tell all stockholders that henceforth, unless they actually work for the company they own stock in, all dividends they earn on their stock will be taxed at a 100% tax rate?
Arrest all wealthy Americans who attempt to move their assets to accounts in other countries?
Put those arrested Americans on trial in an overly public venue designed to make them look really, really bad?
Grow a big, bushy black mustache?
Have an inordinate fondness for brass band marches?
If you answer a significant number of these questions with a “yes,” then chances are your newly elected president is secretly a socialist. If not, then you are probably confused (yet again) about what the world “socialist” actually means.
link:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/16988.html
February 16th, 2009 at 10:52 amWhenever the socialist actions of a politician is mentioned, the left nearly always attempts to ridicule the arguement with McCarthy references…but, neglect to mention that many of the people McCarthy accused were INDEED either spies or, CPUSA members or,sympathizers. The declassified KGB archives, Oleg Kalugen (the chief of the KGB’s American espionage directorate) and, Vasili Mitrokhin the famed soviet spy, all make mention of how deeply infiltrated the US government was with spies and “usefull idiots” within the democratic party and that McCarthy was for the most part…
February 17th, 2009 at 1:08 amAbosulutely correct!
-Sepp Says: #16
“McCarthy was for the most part…
Abosulutely correct!”
Sepp, I hope you are not one of the response bloggers that personally attacks rebuttals.
But here one is.
J. Edgar hoover, Sen. Joe Mccarthy and Richard Nixon…Go figure.
# 1950 Feb 9: Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin gave a speech at Wheeling, West Virginia charging that the U.S. State Department was ‘riddled with Communists’.
# 1950 June 1: Seven Republican Senators, led by Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, denounced Sen. McCarthy for attacking ‘individual freedom’. http://www.genordell.com/stores/lantern/blacklist.htm
wwforlife: It was a fishing expedition that ruined the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people. “Only the Ten unfriendly witnesses were sentenced; and only then for their refusal to admit and then disavow their affiliation with the Communist Party”
“At first glance it appears that the initial hearings were unjustified. Scholars and historians incorrectly grieve over how these initial hearings deprived hundreds of innocent people their ability to earn a living. But in point of fact, as a result of the 1947 hearings only the Ten unfriendly witnesses were sentenced; and only then for their refusal to admit and then disavow their affiliation with the Communist Party, however sophomoric and foreign that sounds today. The tenor of the times must be taken into consideration here. None can now say that in the late 1940s there was not a genuine Communist peril.
http://www.moderntimes.com/blacklist/
Congressional hearings were in effect, not hearings, but trials for crimes that were not really crimes, with congressmen serving as prosecutor, judge, and jury. Unable to deprive a person of their life and liberty, they deprived him of his livelihood. Other people who were not convicted of anything including being a communist were also in trouble, because headlines of newspapers and magazines wouldn’t miss the new story for the world.
1954 Dec 2: The U.S. Senate voted to condemn Sen. McCarthy for “conduct that tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute” for his actions during the Congressional hearings.
U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy stirred up anti-Communist fears and rose to power
in collusion with the House Un-American Activities Committee during the 1950s,
but his hell-bent disregard for Constitutional rights led to censure by Congress, a failed career,
and a lonely death from alcoholism. ”
Communism did not take over America and it was not because 10 witnesses failed to answer question. It was because of the American people. The return of McCarthyism is seen today by some people in the form of some talk radio that attempts to divide the people first, slanders second, name calls third and ridicules as a closing practice.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pmWow – talk about interchangeable (not) terms.
Socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. It is the unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Communism, with a capital ‘c’ is a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls and owns production facilities and distribution of goods. (An absence of private property).
Totalitarianism refers to the Marxist theory that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority.
It is a grossly hyperbolic statement to relate talk radio to McCarthyism. It is such a far cry from being merely verbally pilloried on a radio show that no one is even required to listen to – with being given a subpoena to be brought in front of Senate panels and excoriated on national television with the threat of prison hanging over your head. With the resultant loss of employment and community shame as a result of not having any evidence produced against you. McCarthy’s name is synonymous with witch hunt.
I think that if a single mind in America is able to believe that an opinion they don’t approve of is the same as the tactics that McCarthy used to terrorize an entire nation is actually a good statement. It shows that there is no understanding of what kind of fear people lived under in America during the McCarthy years.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pmKateb Says: #18
“It is a grossly hyperbolic statement to relate talk radio to McCarthyism.”
============
I listen to talk radio, both left and right, on a regular basis. Long may they have the right to say what they say. and long may I and millions of others on the internet, in books and in movies see a similarity in the tactics of Joe McCarthy, J.Edgar Hoover and Richard Milhouse Nixon.
Trent Lott said, “Talk radio is ruining America.” An advisor to Mike Huckabee piled on late last year, stating “Rush [Limbaugh] doesn’t think for himself. That’s not necessarily a slap because he’s not paid to be a thinker–he’s an entertainer.”
“While right-wing talkers like Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Melanie Morgan continue to spew inflammatory rhetoric to incite their base, there are increasing signs that their influence in the conservative movement is temporarily evaporating.”
They could not save the GOP.
“We have seen the character of private citizens and of Government employees virtually destroyed by public condemnation on the basis of gossip, distortion, hearsay, and deliberate untruths.” The Tydings Committee Report on McCarthy’s Charges(1950).”
Sound familiar?
“In the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, Americans suffered from a political and cultural hysteria caused by fear and anxiety about the Soviet threat’ (Today it is fear of Democrats.) In addition to government blacklists, private organizations also printed blacklists of their own. One of the more prominent non-government blacklists was Red Channels, which published lists of names of individuals and organizations suspected of being communists. If your name was placed on one of these blacklists, you could lose your job and your life and reputation could be ruined. To give you a sense of how these blacklists work, let’s look at the case of Nancy Reagan. In the early 1950s, Nancy Davis discovered her name was on one of the blacklists and she could not longer work as an actress. Nancy went to the President of the Screen Actors Guild, Ronald Reagan, and begged him to take her name of the list. Reagan got her name off the list, and he
later married her.”
Today if you are a Democrat, some are accused of destroying America. Sound familiar?
“Because of this growing anti-communist hysteria in the early 1950s created by McCarthyism, Americans began to look over their shoulders wondering whether if there weren’t in fact communists in their midst. Some people used the charge of communism to defeat their enemies and their competition.”
Today we have accusations that if you were a Democrat you could not even be considered for a job in the Whitehouse attorney pool and some talk shows have even advocated violence! (Sounds like McCarthyism to me.)
“Some accused the Girl Scouts of being a communist front. Others charged that Rock and Roll musicians were communists. Some accused people who supported putting fluoride in the water of being communists. Political activists such as feminists and Black Civil Rights and students were accused of being communists. Teachers and University professors were accused of being communists, trying to undermine the values of young Americans. ”
Fear, Fear fear. Today the Democrats are accused of being soft on America defense putting us all in danger. Sound familiar?
“McCarthyism allowed the government to violate the basic civil and political rights of Americans throughout the Cold War. In the 1950s and 1960s, the FBI and the CIA opened people’s mail, followed and harassed political groups challenging government policy, and attempted to “neutralize” Americans who did not support America’s aggressive Cold War policies. It was only in the mid-1970s that Americans discovered the full extent to which the government violated their basic rights under McCarthyism in the early years of the Cold War. Revelations about government violations of the laws and of American’s basic rights caused many Americans to question their government and its commitment to democracy.”
McCarthy, Hoover and Richard Milhouse Nixon at work again. What a team and what a finish for them all!
kateb Says:
“It is such a far cry from being merely verbally pilloried on a radio show that no one is even required to listen to – with being given a subpoena to be brought in front of Senate panels and excoriated on national television with the threat of prison hanging over your head. With the resultant loss of employment and community shame as a result of not having any evidence produced against you. McCarthy’s name is synonymous with witch hunt.”
Being “merely” daily pilloried on radio, has cost loss of employment, community shame with sometimes no evidence produced against you and a fear of reprisal at work, in their career, with their neighbors and at home. Not even mentioning the accusations and threats made against the new president and his family. Some talk shows have spread hatred, racism and vindictiveness. Some talk shows are not designed to unite but to make money. Maybe it would be better if a subpoena were issued so that some of those accused of trying to destroy America by voting Democrat could defend themselves!
It is said that ten people went to jail as a result of the McCarthy hearings, not for being convicted of being communist but for failure to answers questions. How many are hurt by the hateful rhetoric and disinformation heard on some talk shows to day? And how is Americas’ healing process going?
You may have the last word on this issue.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:45 amNo ww, I’m not going to get silly with you or be spitefull.
I just happen to have an interest in soviet history and, especially the now available and declassified kgb archives. Many of them have confirmed McCarthy’s claims as to who was actively collborating with KBG agents working in the USA.
It was also disclosed that FDR’s 3rd vice president Henry Wallace was an active operative for the NKVD the forerunner of the KGB!
So, yes McCarthy was correct on soviet-plants working within the government but, was incorrect as to how high up in government they actually were.
“Oh you Americans! You’re so gullible! We’ll spoon feed you socialism until you’re Communists and don’t’ even know it. We’ll never have to fire a shot!” -Nikita Kruschev
And…look around you! The sad thing is that we watched the soviet system implode only to have our own elected officials trying to lead us down the same path.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:07 am-sepp Says: #20
“No ww, I’m not going to get silly with you or be spitefull.”
Lisa, What about a Glass City Jungle peace prize for the way that Sepp reponded to input on the socialist blog. Sepp shows that it is possible to hold a blogging conversation without being a pitbull with a computer.
Sepp, Socialism, like an alien being, probably starts to grow within the body of many governments, government leaders and business leaders once they get the power. Not only does socialism come into play once one gets the power, many other repressive systems in the history of the world sometimes get into the mix.
On the subject of Socialism, the problem is labeling this attitude and getting one to admit whether it is socialism or not and then to decide if it is a path down socialism or just a close walk beside the path of socialism on the way to something else! Is it really pure socialism or just a hint. Sometimes you must go partially down the same road but when you come to a fork in the road and you continue on the same path, that is when the labeling can stick. But remember, One man’s label is one man’s opinion.
“I just happen to have an interest in soviet history and, especially the now available and declassified kgb archives.”
Sepp, Get back to me when our files are fully declassified.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:20 amww, it’s a road we shouldn’t even be walking down let comming to a fork in the road! Socialism / communism run counter to our constitution and our American value system as a whole. We were founded and have sustained as a people who wished to be independent from government intrusions and free to live our lives as we see fit as free men. Over the years, our constitutional rights have been incrementally infringed upon for safety, for the children, for the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on poverty and on and on to the point where we have “free speech zones” in a country that is supposed to be a free speech zone wherever you happen to be standing! We have “rights groups” like the NRA who are trying to preserve a right that according to the constitution isn’t supposed to be infringed upon at all! We have to hire a lawyer to defend ourselves from the patriot act when our right to privacy is spelled out for us, the government can now revoke our rights and rename us “enemy combatants” and evade the burden of our constitutional rights yet again! Last year they passed the “hb1955 homegrown terrorism law” which simply complaining about the government can get you jailed for “suspicion” without access to a lawyer!
It’s not just a label anymore, it’s whats happenening to our country in tiny fragments and being swallowed by the people “as being good for them and their safety!”
When I see the government creating laws that make anything I do or, say a criminal act…while only protecting the government…I get suspicous!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pmDon’t you?
Our own files are probably even more frightening than the KGB’s.
Check this video from my blog out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNIU2KEz4g&eurl=http://uncommonsqualor.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded
Sepp says: #22
“Over the years, our constitutional rights have been incrementally infringed upon for safety, for the children, for the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on poverty and on and on to the point where we have “free speech zones” in a country that is supposed to be a free speech zone wherever you happen to be standing! We have “rights groups” like the NRA who are trying to preserve a right that according to the constitution isn’t supposed to be infringed upon at all! We have to hire a lawyer to defend ourselves from the patriot act when our right to privacy is spelled out for us, the government can now revoke our rights and rename us “enemy combatants” and evade the burden of our constitutional rights yet again! Last year they passed the “hb1955 homegrown terrorism law” which simply complaining about the government can get you jailed for “suspicion” without access to a lawyer!
It’s not just a label anymore, it’s whats happenening to our country in tiny fragments and being swallowed by the people “as being good for them and their safety!”
In your indictment, it looks like both the Democrats and the Republicans have started us down a path beside Socialism. I hope that this administration is at that fork in the road I spoke about and will choose another path although it will not be easy to completely undo all of the infringements and interferences that you speak off.
I found this:
“In a capitalist economy, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and prohibiting force and fraud. Because our modern federal government has strayed so far from its limited constitutional powers, it controls the economy far more than the founders intended. (But sometimes it is those in power that sets the agenda, while we accuse the government) As a result, our economy is becoming more and more socialist. Federal taxes, regulations, welfare, subsidies, wage controls, and price controls, along with Fed manipulation of interest rates and the money supply, all represent socialist government intervention in the economy. No matter what the Democrats or Republicans want to call it, socialism is socialism. We should have the honesty to identify exactly what is being advocated when some call for even more government control of the economy.”
Sepp, Knowing that these rights have slipped away under both parties, we are not on opposite sides. but sometimes the government does need to step in to right the ship if they have the intelligence and the concerns of the nation at heart. But sometimes when it appears that it is government that is getting into the business of controlling everything, sometimes it is very powerful capitalists pulling their strings like bankers, corporations, drug company executives, and insurance corporations. Remember the Wizard of OZ! By the way , I said “just a hint of socialism” not a full fledged walk on the wild side of socialism. I for one am not sure how an administration can turn around all of the extreme problems that we now have, but I am sure that some of them will not please everyone.
You may have the last word on this subject as we will obviously talk again on other subjects.
You have spoiled me with your courteous discourse.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:00 pm