A key trait of socialism is the achievement of a classless society, one in which wealth
is held in common, usually by the state, and individual wealth is looked upon with disdain.
Such a regimen prevails in many of the western European republics, and is based on massive
public entitlements that necessitate crushing tax rates and destroy individual economic
incentive in quest of the ephemeral collective good. When Barack Obama talks of
"spreading the wealth around," it is precisely such a society hehas in mmind.
But converting a fiercely free market economy of rugged individualists who are governed
by a constitution that places a premium on personal freedoms requires a massive political,
communications and philosophical transformation that is very difficult to achieve, as Obama
is finding out. However, it is not only the system itself that is repugnant to most Americans, but the rubric, or discipline by which it is usually achieved.
To make such major systemic change it is necessary to define what that change is from. What \
is it about the old that makes the new better? Socialists, whether they be the precursors of Russian
Communism targeting the bourgeoisie -- the wealthy, property owning class -- or the Obama
administration targeting the "haves" -- 'fat cat Wall Street bankers," immoral insurance companies"
or just Pennsylvanians "bitterly clinging to their guns and relision" require targets, Revolution can be achieved only if society is successfully polarized and the targets sufficientlyvilified. In "Obamaspeak," the rich are not American citizens entitled to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness like other citizens. They are the butt of jokes, worthy of disdain,
to blame for most of the country's ills and fit only for Draconian taxation to fund enttilement
programs for layabouts who are truly the salt of the earth. Big Oil, Wall Street and the
insuirance giants are not an engine that makes American commerce go, but ruthless profiteers,
hoarders of "unconscionable profits" and "obscene wealth." If these phrases sound familiar
it is because they are quoted directly from Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
When Indiana's Democratic Senator Evan Bayh announced that he would not stand for
re=election, he cited a "broken" congress wherein every Senate bill requires 60 votes (out
of 100) to pass. The deeper question is one of why that state of affairs exists. It exists because
of the radical incongruency of the socialist crowd's agenda with traditional Americam values
and the patronizing rhetoric of the liberal elitists directed at ordinary people. (And by the
way, what's wrong with needing at least sixty out of a hundred votes to pass sweeping
legislation that enables government to take over vast sectors of the national economy?)
Liberal commentator Bill Maher, appearing on CNN's Larry King show said that Americans
are "too dumb to understand the issues" and "don't care" what positions politicians take so
long as they stick to them. In other words. the average American is an idiot who only respects
power. Such condescending, insulting commentary convinces no one, and builds the wall
of bitter partisanship thicker and higher.
The rubric of socialism is labeling, hate-mongering and namecalling. People and businesses
of means, Americans of traditional values and lifestyles and anything conservative are the
targets. We have to ask ourselves whether we are willing to have our national policy defined
by who we hate, or whether it might be better to send those who want to transform our
democracy after the image of tattered and failed socialist ones over to Europe, where they
can enjoy themselves without insisting that others jump aboard their hate express.