Posted by
Duane Bolick on Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:22:18 AM
American liberal Democrats adapt quickly, I'll give them that. Ever since John Edwards was effectively laughed off the stage in 2004 during a
Vice Presidential debate, where Cheney schooled him on why it's a really bad idea to increase taxes on small business, Obama and leading Democrats have modified their talking points in an attempt to obscure their Marxist (yeah, I said it) ambitions.
Unfortunately for them, anyone who pays attention to recent history can easily see through their laughably transparent facade. Even worse, anyone who's paid attention to
actual history (you know, all that "old stuff" that happened, like forty or fifty years ago) knows what happens to nations when they use Obama's proposed economic policies of, 1) income-quintile-based (i.e. "Class"-based) antagonism and, 2) "spreading the wealth." The most recent and spectacular failure of a nation run by Obama's proposed policies would be the USSR, who managed to, in total, starve and/or murder over 100 Million people in the name of "equality" and "fairness" before it imploded.
In fact, to observe great examples of the ongoing collapse of Socialist-run economies, one has to look no further than western Europe, where citizens die of cancer while waiting to see doctors thanks to "Universal Health Care." Entrepreneurs limit themselves to maybe one or two employees at best (if any at all) because if they earned any more, it'd all be taken away in taxes. Your ability to get and keep a job is based not on your ability to create value, but on your ability to charm individuals on the local Works Council (these are common in European nations, especially Germany - think Labor Unions, writ large) into liking you, personally, enough to give you favors. This is not ancient, irrelevant history. These are current events, and they are evidence that the modern American left's plan of "Spread the Wealth," and their focus on "fairness," and "equality of outcomes," leads to personal suffering, economic stagnation and national despair.
Early in the presidential race during his appearance at Orange County's Saddleback Church, Obama was asked to define "rich." Without hesitation Obama said, "I would argue that if you are making more than $250,000, then you ... are doing well.” Obama, in effect, declared that there is such a thing as "enough" money, that he knows exactly how much "enough" is, and God help you if you make more than "enough."
When it was pointed out that taxing those Obama felt were "rich" would hamstring our economy because most of those individuals were actually small business owners (the creators of 70-80% of new jobs), Obama
enlightened his
narrative to say that his tax plans would only tax the upper 5% of "small businesses," leaving the less successful 95% relatively tax-free. When it was pointed out that the upper 5% of those small businesses were the ones that created the vast majority of new jobs and that Obama's policies regardless of their sophomoric number-mangling, would still hamper America's economic growth, the left reacted strangely.
Rather than providing further enlightmenment of the Obama narrative, the Democrat Party Official Press Office (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the Associated Press, Reuters, The View, The New York Times, etc.) claimed that Obama's detractors were accusing him of being a Socialist. The American Socialist Party immediately declared that, despite the fact that Obama's economic policies are manifestly Socialist,
Obama isn't a Socialist. (Oddly enough, according to their statements in the article, they're all still voting for Obama).
How remarkable is it that when we as a nation have finally muddled through Obama's smokescreen to expose him for the Socialist he is, we start hearing claims from the mainstream media of "
Red-baiting?"
To the uninitiated, the accusation of "Red-baiting," is the last-ditch defense of Socialists. Once you've managed to reduce their convoluted words and speeches to their actual ideology, and realize, "Wait a minute... This system of economics is fundamentally flawed. I can explain why. In fact, I can not only
explain the flaws in an abstract manner, I can also provide recent concrete historical evidence that 'Spread the Wealth' policies just don't work, like in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, China..." you're guilty.
The Obama political machine's current denial of Obama's naive Socialist tendencies is, "Oh-ho-ho, certainly nobody could possibly support a Communist economic policy. Even though Obama's economic policy
appears to be the same in nature, it's actually more, like, totally Change-oriented. If you point out the fact that Obama's totally Change-oriented economic policy is actually just a rehashed, revamped version of Socialism, then... Well, you're clearly anti-Change."
As a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, a Socialist by any other name would govern just as badly.