A simplistic but established definition for communism is, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That “selfish” people expect to be rewarded for their efforts makes such an ideal totally unworkable and is fact that seems lost on America’s Democratic nominee for president.
Because the word communism is attached indelibly to the arch enemy Soviet Union Ronald Reagan so accurately attributed, “The evil empire”, its usage is profane in modern politics and is discounted as some sort of hyperbolic epithet if voiced.
I’ve been nave enough to point out that many facets of American society have been subjugated to government control mirroring the “communist” model Americans abhorred and fought the cold war to avoid, only to receive looks of disgust for my audacity.
Rush Limbaugh likes to say, “Words mean things” and works his audience with intellectual provocation, parody, and humor attempting to communicate foundational American concepts and historic insights to his listeners.
Unfortunately, the “intellectual” angle sways few when much of our society has such a poor knowledge of history or has learned an inaccurate portrayal promulgated in institutions of higher learning dominated by “liberal” professors.
I’ve written about conservatism’s intent in protecting the Founder’s vision of freedom and liberty for America, only to be told the Founding Fathers were liberals in reply, with my opponents never engaging my point that liberty, freedom, and the right to pursue happiness are God given rights over which government does not have jurisdiction.
While we strive for intellectual comprehension and communication on the right, the left, aided by the elitist class, scowls at our “immature” and “simplistic” views explaining how our “complicated” world is too difficult for noble but stupid “Nascar Fans” to understand. Then they dish out a healthy dose of emotional propaganda to a constituency agreeing that the right is dumb yet can’t tell you that Congress is made up of two houses or that the Judiciary is a branch of government.
Progressive and liberal are new labels for the same old philosophies described by socialism, collectivism and communism. They all embrace a core belief that power should and must be lifted from the American citizen and transferred to bureaucrats for society’s own good. Making that accurate articulation is always greeted by insult with detractors spouting some nonsense about fairness.
The left wants people to feel their efforts, not comprehend them.
Neither pure communism nor pure capitalism exists in any society. In “capitalistic” countries and in “communist” countries we find idealistic attributes embraced which are inherent in the other. The difference lies in how the competitive spirit is encouraged by each system. In our system, defined by America’s Founders, excellence is the final arbiter where awards are presented due accomplishments that aid society revealed by a free market.
In the anti-American socialist system competition still exists, however the field is monopolized by government and award goes to those best able to maneuver a structure which demands that accomplishment never crosses party line to insure the privileged class is never unseated.
The proclamation that our current political evolution is a move toward communism may be offensive, but where my deference to public sensibilities fails, one thing is for sure, it is impossible to argue convincingly that today’s movement is toward more freedom and liberty.
This Presidential election we have two choices; in one the ascendant will use the full powers of the office to enthusiastically take away liberties in exchange for more arbitrary and mediocre government services, destroy our military, and punish wealth in the name of fairness.
Our other choice presents a man who will continue to proclaim limiting free speech is good to insure fair elections regardless our Bill of Rights, who enthusiastically proclaims he is against “obscene profits” piling on against oil companies for doing their jobs well, and who embraces the imagined threat of man-made climate change to encourage stifling regulation, but promises not to stop killing terrorists.
My study of America’s Constitution has never revealed freedom or liberty allowably limited, controlled, or throttled because of some bureaucrat’s interpretation of fair or fairness.
Do you think it is by accident that the Founders neglected to include fair into the text of their premier document, even one time?
If we are going to be stuck here at home sacrificing more liberty to government control regardless who becomes our next president, then what difference does it make whether or not we beat the crap out of Al Qaeda which only wants the same?
Copyright 2008 Jim Pontillo