Thursday, January 14, 2016

What's the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat?

Just recently, both Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton, Democrat candidate for president, were asked that headline question, “What's the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat” and the question was met with a “burst” of silence. In other words they didn't know the difference. I don't really blame them because there really is no difference. Many elected Democrat officials are members of the organization called the Democratic Socialists of America (Google up members of the Democratic Socialists of America). You will find approximately 70 members of the House and Senate who are members, and practically all of the Congressional Black caucus, who are members of that organization.

Most Democrats will deny that they espouse Socialism because the word, according to them, has a negative connotation in the lexicon of the American language, but it is with their ideas and actions that belie the fact that they are more sympathetic to Socialism than they are of Capitalism. There has been a quote going around that is attributed to the late perennial presidential candidate on the Socialist Party line in the 40's and 50's, Norman Thomas, who supposedly said, “ The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform”. Whether Norman Thomas actually made that statement, it sort of rings true as the past 60 years have shown. The Democrat Party has evolved into the party of big government and big government handouts, and who some have called them, sarcastically, the “free stuff” party.

Today, we have an admitted Socialist running for president, Bernie Sanders, and two other candidates by the names of Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley, who instead of using the term socialist, refer to themselves as “Progressives” (which many say is a euphemism for Socialists).

The U.S.A. was founded on capitalist principles and in a little over two short centuries it has brought forth more innovation and accomplishments than any other economic system used by man. That successful system is now being attacked as being unfair and an exploiter of the average citizen. In 2008, then candidate and now president, Barack Hussein Obama, campaigned on the slogan of “Hope and Change” and that he was going to “transform America”. Well, how did that work out?

Yes, some people fallen through the cracks and some have been unable to take advantage of our capitalist free enterprise system, but to abandon our capitalist free enterprise system for a government guarantee of everyone being taken care of by the government, we would have then taken out the incentive for people to better themselves and to make their lives a success on their own. We then will have descended into mediocrity by accepting the Marxist philosophy of “from everyone according to his ability to everyone according to his need”.

The people espousing Socialism want to “rob from the rich to give to the poor” (the term “income inequality” used by the Democrats), which is a form of government looting of the producers in our society to support the non-producers, which inevitably runs into trouble whenever the givers of these government “goodies” (the politicians) run out of other peoples money (us, the taxpayers). The Socialists then blame Capitalism, which was the goose that laid the golden egg. In a classic bait and switch, the Progressives (a/k/a the Democrats and Socialists) offer freedom and deliver regulations. They offer prosperity and deliver stagnation, inflation, and economic ruin. This mentality of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” (mainly to generate votes for politicians), is a prelude to blame Capitalism for the economic ills of society when in reality, Socialism is the problem and Capitalism is the solution.

Just listen to the Democrat candidates for president and see what they have to offer - they want government to be the be-all and end-all of society, therefore giving these Progressive leaders power over the people, by making and keeping them dependent, which is what they always seem to crave. So the answer to the headline of this editorial's question is - there is absolutely no difference between a Socialist and a Democrat.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the United States is already a socialist country. Almost 50% of our citizens are receiving assistance. Our government takes tax dollars from the middle class and give handouts to illegals and non-working citizens who through the years have learned to game they system. So think about this for a minute. If you were receiving housing and income assistance, food stamps, free breakfast and lunch for your kids, and other handouts you might be eligible for and you vote, legally or otherwise, would you vote for somebody that will change all that? NO, NO, and NOOOOOOOOO you wouldn't. There was a quote attributed to Lyndon Johnson that said and I am paraphrasing, give those (n-word) what they want and they'll vote for you for the next two hundred years. So let's not be racist, let's substitute the n-word with anybody who is afraid of losing their handouts and President Johnson was right. So we have almost 50% on the government payroll, I'd say we are already a socialist country we just haven't realized it yet. So now what do you do?

Ron Grimaldi said...

Obama, the unnamed Socialist, wants to redistribute wealth, but ends up redistributing poverty (you can include Hillary and Bernie in that statement).These Democrat/Socialists blame Republicans for the failure of Obamacare even though none of them voted for it.