White_Male_Canada
06-01-2007, 01:51 AM
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008: Sen. Hillary Clinton shared on Tuesday her vision of the U.S. economy under her executive stewardship. She should change her party affiliation — or the name of her party.
Speaking in New Hampshire, Clinton acknowledged that instead of the "ownership society" that George W. Bush has promoted throughout his presidency, she prefers a "we're all in it together society" where prosperity is "broadly shared."
This is the sort of "it takes a village" rhetoric that tickles the ears of the left, and which can't give up its romantic notions of a collectivist utopia.
Dreams of the left, however, always turn out to be nightmares, and the world has seen its share of all-in-it-together societies that have failed. The Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea and the worker's paradise/island prison of Cuba enter the mind right away.
Then there are the teetering soft-socialist systems of Europe, while socialist/communist power grabs now sapping the wealth and strength of Zimbabwe and Venezuela are contemporary lessons that can't be ignored.
Given these examples, do we really want to turn America into another experiment in collectivism? Are we willing to trade hard-won freedoms for government-provided security? Would we be willing to force those who don't want to participate into such a system?
Incredibly, many Americans would say yes to all three. An entitlement mentality has corrupted our nation and left-leaning politicians such as Clinton, as well as cynical chameleon opportunists, are skilled at exploiting the feelings of those who are driven by envy or guilt.
The root problem of a socialist — or village or nanny — state is that it robs people of their humanity and removes the incentives that bring economic progress. It produces a soul-draining apathy.
The cradle-to-grave system that is the hallmark of socialism provides no motivation for its beneficiaries to work harder, longer and smarter — all keys to greater prosperity. Irresponsibility, inefficiency and waste — enemies of economic expansion — are encouraged when property is wholly or mostly owned by the state rather than private individuals or corporations.
We're not here to label Hillary Clinton a socialist, but we really don't have to; she's done that job for us. The economic proposals she's lining up behind expose an undeniable affinity for raw socialism.
Promoting a leftist orthodoxy is not some new campaign ploy for Clinton. She's been at it for some time. At a 2004 fundraiser, she told supporters that "for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that (tax cuts) short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Earlier this year she promised that a third Clinton administration would seize oil company profits and use the money for government projects.
Who can forget her plan to force a universal health care plan on an ostensibly free people? That's not a free-market solution.
Sift through Clinton's history and it's clear that her swing to the left goes back much further than her husband's first term in the White House. Barbara Olson, a former federal general counsel and congressional investigator who tragically died on Flight 77 on Sept. 11, 2001, said in a 2000 interview that Clinton "has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism."
In "Hell To Pay," Olson's 1999 book on "The unfolding story of Hillary Rodham Clinton," she writes about the New York's senator's attempt to mask her socialist ambitions in a children's rights veneer. The dust jacket describes Clinton as a "sixties radical" who "has maintained her ties to the radical left."
Inside, Olson tells of how much influence Saul Alinsky, the radical who once said that the "Reds' platform stood for all the right things," had on her as she formed her political philosophy in moving from a Goldwater Girl of the Midwest to an East Coast activist on the left.
Clinton's supporters will argue that those days don't count, that she has mainstreamed her views. What concerns us is that we might have to wait until she's elected president for those denials to be revealed as bunk.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=265416447464230
Election 2008: Sen. Hillary Clinton shared on Tuesday her vision of the U.S. economy under her executive stewardship. She should change her party affiliation — or the name of her party.
Speaking in New Hampshire, Clinton acknowledged that instead of the "ownership society" that George W. Bush has promoted throughout his presidency, she prefers a "we're all in it together society" where prosperity is "broadly shared."
This is the sort of "it takes a village" rhetoric that tickles the ears of the left, and which can't give up its romantic notions of a collectivist utopia.
Dreams of the left, however, always turn out to be nightmares, and the world has seen its share of all-in-it-together societies that have failed. The Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea and the worker's paradise/island prison of Cuba enter the mind right away.
Then there are the teetering soft-socialist systems of Europe, while socialist/communist power grabs now sapping the wealth and strength of Zimbabwe and Venezuela are contemporary lessons that can't be ignored.
Given these examples, do we really want to turn America into another experiment in collectivism? Are we willing to trade hard-won freedoms for government-provided security? Would we be willing to force those who don't want to participate into such a system?
Incredibly, many Americans would say yes to all three. An entitlement mentality has corrupted our nation and left-leaning politicians such as Clinton, as well as cynical chameleon opportunists, are skilled at exploiting the feelings of those who are driven by envy or guilt.
The root problem of a socialist — or village or nanny — state is that it robs people of their humanity and removes the incentives that bring economic progress. It produces a soul-draining apathy.
The cradle-to-grave system that is the hallmark of socialism provides no motivation for its beneficiaries to work harder, longer and smarter — all keys to greater prosperity. Irresponsibility, inefficiency and waste — enemies of economic expansion — are encouraged when property is wholly or mostly owned by the state rather than private individuals or corporations.
We're not here to label Hillary Clinton a socialist, but we really don't have to; she's done that job for us. The economic proposals she's lining up behind expose an undeniable affinity for raw socialism.
Promoting a leftist orthodoxy is not some new campaign ploy for Clinton. She's been at it for some time. At a 2004 fundraiser, she told supporters that "for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that (tax cuts) short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Earlier this year she promised that a third Clinton administration would seize oil company profits and use the money for government projects.
Who can forget her plan to force a universal health care plan on an ostensibly free people? That's not a free-market solution.
Sift through Clinton's history and it's clear that her swing to the left goes back much further than her husband's first term in the White House. Barbara Olson, a former federal general counsel and congressional investigator who tragically died on Flight 77 on Sept. 11, 2001, said in a 2000 interview that Clinton "has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism."
In "Hell To Pay," Olson's 1999 book on "The unfolding story of Hillary Rodham Clinton," she writes about the New York's senator's attempt to mask her socialist ambitions in a children's rights veneer. The dust jacket describes Clinton as a "sixties radical" who "has maintained her ties to the radical left."
Inside, Olson tells of how much influence Saul Alinsky, the radical who once said that the "Reds' platform stood for all the right things," had on her as she formed her political philosophy in moving from a Goldwater Girl of the Midwest to an East Coast activist on the left.
Clinton's supporters will argue that those days don't count, that she has mainstreamed her views. What concerns us is that we might have to wait until she's elected president for those denials to be revealed as bunk.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=265416447464230