« Off to the races |
Blog Home Page
| Is Ahmadinejad aiming for December 15? »
November 13, 2006
Now, can we call them
Conservatives are suicidally polite. We feel bound to act nice, and so we go along with whatever euphemism the Left chooses for itself. On their side, Democrats loudly argue for truth in advertising for baldness cures ——— but not in the marketplace of political ideas, where telling the truth is a lot more important. That is why the Left constantly seeks new PR labels to disguise itself.
Using the word "socialism" is taboo in American politics, but today the Democratic Party is socialist at heart. Even "liberal" isn't accurate any more, because today's Democrats are hardly the party of Cold War liberals like John F. Kennedy and Harry S Truman. Instead, they have fallen back on fuzzy, wishful Marxism. It's where they feel most comfortable.
The Left is now pushing for yet a new PR label, "progressive," which gently rings the old Marxist chimes for those in the know. If you call yourself a progressive, everybody who doesn't agree must be a Neanderthal. But words mean things, and "socialist" is simply more accurate than either "liberal" or "progressive."
On Iraq the key to Democrat thinking is that they are internationalists —— they despise nationalism of all kinds, seeing it as the cause of wars. But the old Communist anthem was of course "The Internationale." Internationalism is a defining feature of socialism, going back to the 19th century.
It is our fundamental difference on foreign policy.
Conservatives see American patriotism as a saving grace. A widespread faith in the goodness of our country brought us through the dangers of the 20th century. Sure we made mistakes, being human, and politics being what it is. But for conservatives, the United States is still the last, best hope of mankind. The anti—American media therefore constantly tries to undermine pro—American feelings. Instead, they look to socialist Europe and the socialist UN; against a century of facts, they would place our safety in the hands of strangers.
That is presumably what Senator Hillary Clinton had in mind last week, when she called for more "internationalism" in American policy.
But "American internationalism" Is an oxymoron; it contradicts itself. After 9/11 we know perfectly well what "American Internationalism" really means. It means that we pay for NATO and the UN, protect Europe with a nuclear umbrella for sixty years, and then, when terrorists cause mass civilian deaths in New York City and Washington, DC, the Europeans will scream and yell at us when we try to preempt further attacks.
For socialists, internationalism comes first and America a very distant second. We have no true allies in Europe, except for Britain, and Tony Blair is now losing his job over faithfully sticking by our alliance. Senator Clinton's "American internationalism" is a slogan for milking Uncle Sam and screwing him at the same time. If you doubt it, consider this story from the Washington Post by Thomas Edsall, June 28, 1998, in the happy days before 9/11.
Third Way Socialism means piggy—backing Labour socialism on top of Maggie Thatcher's capitalism: Taxing the free market just enough to support the socialist state. Today, the free market in Britain is being taxed to sink British sovereignty into the greedy arms of the EU, utterly corrupt and anti—democratic. The people of Britain have now been so deeply indoctrinated that they hardly notice it any more.
For the Left, politics is too important to be honest about. It has that in common with Islamist fascism.
If and when American conservatives decide to call a socialist a socialist, the Left will scream that it's is a McCarthyite smear. But is the word "socialism" defamatory or just the plain truth? In their hearts the Left believes, it believes fervently (in private), in caucusing with the Elect.
Socialism is a coherent political philosophy, painting a rosy future of peace and equality forever, if only the really good people achieve total power; in reality, the socialist fantasy just keeps slamming into a wall of failures, disasters, tyrannies, massacres and miseries wherever it's tried.
But conservatives can't even point to the Left's endless record of failure if we don't dare to use the word "socialism." We have to find the courage to say the s—word.
If you want to know what socialists really believe, read one Labour Councillor, Terry Kelly from Scotland. If Mr. Kelly seems like a nut—ball to you, keep in mind that he speaks for most of British Labour ——— especially those who hate the traitor Tony Blair. He also sounds exactly like Moveon.org and the hard Left of the Democrat Party, which is now taking credit for the Leftist takeover of the US Congress.
Writes Mr. Kelly,
There. He said it. It's just the plain truth. Less than 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the horrific past of Stalin and starvation is flushed down the memory hole. Socialists have not changed even one little bit. Reality has had no impact, because they are a millenarian sect that always has its eyes on an imaginary future. Yet peace and love are hard to find in Mr. Kelly's high—whine rantings. Councillor Kelly passionately hates America, Israel and Republican "thugs." His fidelity to "tolerance" does not include tolerance for the ideas of other people. These are the folks who control Europe, and who greeted the Democratic win last week with loud Hosannas.
George Orwell is always relevant. A former socialist himself, he became a passionate advocate of truth—telling. Remember this:
Perhaps conservatives should think of themselves as truth—telling revolutionaries in a time of wall—to—wall deceit. Using the s—word is a step in the right direction.
James Lewis 11 13 06