The other day I had the opportunity to guest host a talk radio show (something I always enjoy doing). One of the things I talked about was the shocking pronouncement by Hillary Clinton that she “prefer(s) a we’re all in it together” society.
On the ride back after doing the radio show, I heard Glen Beck raging about the same piece of news, and then heard Rush fulminating about it today.
We have known since her attempt to impose HillaryCare on the country that she was somewhere between very liberal and socialist, but this proclamation on her part puts her firmly in the socialist camp.
Hillary had been trying to position herself as the moderate among the likely Democratic candidates for president until Obama and Edwards started getting some traction by moving (far) to her left. Now she feels the pressure to play to the motivated left wing of the Party in order to win the nomination…and then she’ll have to try to move back toward the center to win the general election.
If the Republicans are smart, and that’s a big if, they will never let her live this down. The idea that “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.” represents true socialism, and is as deeply anti-American as any political position could be.
It is the politics of class envy taken to a degree that people like FDR only dared utter in private because it is not in step with the American public other than a loud fringe minority funded by George Soros and friends.
George Will has a very good essay called “Perennial Themes in Today’s Political Argument” in which he discusses some of the most fundamental differences between modern liberalism and conservatism. Here is one of many great points he makes in the piece:
Conservatism argues, as did the Founders, that self-interestedness is universal among individuals, but the dignity of individuals is bound up with the exercise of self-reliance and personal responsibility in pursuing one’s interests. Liberalism argues that equal dependence on government minimizes social conflicts. Conservatism’s rejoinder is that the entitlement culture subverts social peace by the proliferation of rival dependencies.
Back to Hillary…What Hillary means, and had either the courage or stupidity to say so plainly, is that she intends to punish success, that she intends to make people who are productive and profitable responsible for those who aren’t. Hillary is the perfect modern representative of the government in Atlas Shrugged which, through their insistence that the talented and entrepreneurial members of society had an obligation to serve those who weren’t, destroyed the economy and the nation by removing all incentive for the productive people to actually produce anything.
How many jobs does Hillary think will be created by entrepreneurs whose reward for taking risk and succeeding will be to have to give away that hard-earned wealth to people whose only claim on it is that they don’t have the talent or work ethic to do it themselves.
Hillary’s goals for the United States are truly horrifying. They are completely anti-American, anti-freedom, and anti-prosperity.
We should remind the voting public repeatedly until election day that a vote for Hillary (or the at-least-equally leftist Obama or Edwards) is a stab at the heart of our great nation. Americans are rightfully not happy with the GOP at this time, but that does not mean they will commit national suicide once the ballots are in their hands.
3 users commented in " Hillary’s socialism goes far beyond health care "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackbackdude, you need to get off the pills…and come live in the city for awhile, the world is not what it appears from your t.v. and slant internet news.
As a true liberal, (in the international sense), I am more and more frustrated at the fact that the American liberal left has subverted this truly fantastic philosophy because it does not have the courage (a known trait of the left) to assume what it really is: Socialist.
I don’t know where you get the idea that by having universal healthcare it will lead to some sort of communist society. Atlas Shrugged is a fiction, by the way. The Europeans, Japanese and Canadians all have universal healthcare that is of equal or better quality (statistics back that up – life-spans and infant mortality rate), and they are all normal capitalist democracry. The free market is a wonderful tool we can use to create wonderful things, but it does not work for everything.
“Fairness doesn’t just happen; it requires the right government policies”
There’s nothing to fear from this quote, guys. It’s hardly “all power to the soviets.”
The free market cannot exist without the government policies that allow it to exist. It’s government policies that brought us from feudalism to capitalism and tempers the capitalism from running amok, as you can see in Russia with its capitalist oligarchy that functions more like a mafia then a competitive marketplace (one of the main reasons everyone hypes India and China but not Russia).
Fairness does not mean punishing the successful, it means trying to ensure that everyone has the chance to succeed.
In terms of entrepeneurship, Italy, with it’s social-democrat government and socialized medicine, has many more successful small business owners than the U.S. Small businesses make up 23% of the value of their economy, as opposed to 3% here. So who’s doing more to promote success? The left or the right?
Many small businesses in the US are no longer able to provide health insurance for their employees, and medical costs have become the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US. People who are sick and dying from untreated illness and bankrupt are not successful. The conservative position on healthcare is punishing them, the people who should be succeeding, the small business owner. But they’re more concerned about the continuing the success of insurance companies at the expense of a much larger portion of society and the American economy. That’s unfair, isn’t it?
Leave A Reply