Before a group of students in
New Hampshire the other day, Hillary Clinton let it slip what her vision for the future of the country portends; in a word it is socialism.
Clinton said she prefers a “we’re all in it together” society: “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none; privilege for none except the politically powerful of course.
As Cal Thomas points out in his article on townhall.com,
Clinton seems to be giving a new twist to the Marxian axiom, “from each according to their ability, and to each according to their needs.” Actually the words spoken by Hillary Clinton are those that every true blue, I mean red, liberal espouses. It is no different than John Edward’s Two Americas where society is divided between winners and losers; not evenly divided I remind you, but between many losers and a few winners. In his 2004 Democrat national convention speech, Edwards stated the following:
John Kerry and I believe that we shouldn’t have two different economies in America: one for people who are set for life, they know their kids and their grand-kids are going to be just fine; and then one for most Americans, people who live paycheck to paycheck. You don’t need me to explain this to you do you
In a word the liberal, progressive, socialist, or any nomenclature for those who stand under the collectivist banner view the world through static vision. They see the lives of individuals as has been and always will be. The past, present, and future are one in the same. According to Edwards from the aforementioned passage, without the intervention of government, the poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich. This viewpoint can no better be illustrated then by the comments made during the debate over minimum wage legislation. Proponents for raising the minimum wage argued that those who earn this rate of pay had not received a raise in many years. It is as if they are saying that those who worked for the minimum wage twenty years ago are still today working at that rate of pay. This line of thought totally ignores the reality that the minimum wage job is the first real work experience for those entering the job market, including a great majority who are young. These jobs are just the beginning of a climb up the ladder of financial security. It never occurs to the progressive mind that the captains of industry today started out in minimum wage jobs. No, they see those on the bottom rung as always on the bottom rung and those on top as always on top.
One’s stature in life [happiness to the collectivist is always relative to others] is not a matter of life choices; but is dependent upon the cosmic roll of the dice. There are two kinds of people in
America; the lucky and the unlucky, the blessed and the misfortunate, or the evil and the victim. It is never thought in terms of good decisions and bad decisions, hard work and laziness, or learning and ignorance. The two
Americas are starkly pictured as a country that is bisected by a line, over which few can cross, which divides the winners and the losers. Under this scenario, every human relationship and interaction is seen as one party winning and the other party losing. Outcomes are arbitrarily measured as unfair or fair. In the collectivist world, it cannot be imagined that transaction are executed as a result of mutual benefit, nor can failure or losing be a foundation for future success. When prices rise for example in what we pay for fuel or healthcare it is deemed that the provider of these products wins while the consumer loses. Business profits become a measurement of how much individuals are being ripped off. Of course this viewpoint ignores any notion of economic law and the role that the consumer plays in the establishment of prices and profits neither of which would exist without the demand side of the equation. Furthermore, businesses that operate absent of profit do not exist for any length of time or provide the opportunity for employment. In terms of employment, jobs are again divided by an arbitrary line which separates the good jobs from the bad jobs. When politicians speak of good jobs are they in essence touting the belief that all of us possess the same skills? If we all had “good jobs”, then who would do the bad jobs which provide necessary services; who would pick up the garbage? Do people take bad jobs because there are not enough nuclear physicist openings available? And what wage constitutes a good job? Judging winners and losers require a standard of measurement; a fixed point of reference upon which the outcome of an economic transaction whether it be prices or wages can be judged. **
A fixed point designated by government and judged by the likes of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Chavez and now Hillary Clinton and the lot who tout modern day liberalism and collectivism. Unfortunately this philosophy is not exclusive to the party on the left, there are many in the Republican Party who see validity in all of this.
**excerpt from a book in progress