The Democratic Party Base Is Socialist-Communist

By Eddie Howell

Democratic Socialists of America logo
(Wikipedia.org)

The Democrats have already given us a socialist-communist president in Barack Obama. Many of his far-left appointees are still in government, and there are dozens of socialist-communists in Congress.* The “Liberal” or “Progressive” label usually indicates a socialist-communist politician. Americans may have a hard time believing that, but it is nonetheless true.

The “loyal opposition” isn't so loyal these days. Many of the leftist Democrats are members of, or are closely working with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and very often with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).* The DSA is a Marxist organization and hardly different from communist. Like the CPUSA, they would like to overthrow capitalism and establish a socialist state. They strongly support communist countries.

Socialism goes against the U. S. Constitution, so these politicians are actually in violation of their oath of office.** It is not a stretch to call them domestic enemies of the United States. They are more loyal to socialism and communism than to America. With the virulent hate campaign against President Donald Trump, they are actually attempting to mount a coup d'etat against the U.S. They welcome the violent acts of Black Lives Matter and Antifa as part of their “revolution.” The idea is to create chaos in America and end the presidency of Donald Trump. Although they present themselves as “Democrats,” they are politically far from traditional Democratic Party positions and values.

And most voters don't understand the danger they represent to American life and liberty. Also, many Millennials know little about the nature of socialism, which they claim to prefer, let alone communism, which is just a very small step further, and, for American socialists, is practically the same thing.

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation reports that their research shows

For starters, as of this year, more Millennials would prefer to live in a socialist country (44%) than in a capitalist one (42%). Some even said they would prefer to live in a communist country (7%). The percentage of Millennials who would prefer socialism to capitalism is a full ten points higher than that of the general population.

Further, Millennials had trouble defining socialism and communism, and were often unaware of some important historical facts. Only 19% of Millennials knew that communism has killed over 100 million people (murdered by their own governments). And 47% of Millennials were unfamiliar with Mao Zedong, under whose reign over 60 million people were murdered.

Voters need to understand the nature and history of communism and socialism. Each leads to government running everything, and dictating many aspects of individuals' lives. Economically, neither will produce prosperity, but will lead to chronic shortages and poverty, because central planning doesn't work. Soon, only the elite are able to avoid these things. If you don't have economic freedom, you don't have freedom. Under socialism, there's little incentive to produce better products. The main incentive is for people to gain more power over others. Thus the worst people are soon in charge.

For socialists and communists, the end justifies the means. Any use of lying, theft, or terrorism on any pretext is OK if it advances the cause of the revolution. The promised prosperity and equality is never delivered.

According to Walter E. Williams,

...Why are leftists soft on communism? The reason leftists give communists, the world's most horrible murderers, a pass is that they sympathize with the chief goal of communism: restricting personal liberty. In the U.S., the call is for government control over our lives through regulations and taxation.

*Documented in detail by Trevor Loudon in his books Barack Obama and the Enemies Within and The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the U.S. Congress.

**An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God,” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

(Pub. L. 89-554, September 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.) [Emphasis added]

Trying for the Biggest Extortion Shakedown in History

English: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff, react in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You've probably seen the videos. Over and over.

As President Obama was saying, “If you like your doctor, you can keep him; if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. Period,” he was telling a lie, knowing it was a lie. In fact, people who were paying attention knew this was extremely doubtful, but hoped it might be true. This scheme (Obamacare) was put into effect after several lies from the Con-Artist-in-Chief and his administration, pushed through on a strict party vote, under cover of darkness, handing out exemptions and exceptions in exchange for support; well, you know the history.

Enough people believed the lie that it didn't keep Obama from getting the law passed, and getting reelected. (And stonewalling on Benghazi didn't hurt either.) When you add that to the roll-out fiasco, and the likelihood that young, healthy people will not be enrolling in Obamacare in sufficient numbers to support the program as designed, the Obama Administration is looking at a massive flop. It was supposed to be (and may somehow still may be) a gigantic new entitlement program and wealth transfer mechanism. It appears unsustainable at every level. It confiscates money in the form of the mandates and inflated premiums. Instead of better, lower cost healthcare, it will yield increased taxes, and, contrary to Obama's promises, greatly increased cost, and many people losing insurance, under a misguided and misrepresented, all-around lousy plan. Many people who supported the law are finding that they will suffer harm as this monstrosity is implemented, not the least of which is a serious loss of freedom.

The credibility of Barack Obama has been seriously undermined. But it has been obvious to a lot of people that he can hardly be believed on any promise.

We've been seeing headlines like, “Did the president mislead us on Obamacare?” No, he didn't “mislead” us, he willfully lied about his “signature” accomplishment. For the sake of politics. That is because, to these people, politics trumps everything. When liberals are in power, we get incompetence, a bad economy, and tyranny.

But, of course, it's the fault of the insurance companies. Or maybe George W. Bush. Or the Republican Party.

Update 11/07/13: Further reading: "Barack Obama and His Democrat Party: The Most Documented Liars in the Entire History Of The Human Race," at Start Thinking Right. I agree almost entirely with the article and its theological analysis, but would add that I think that not only will Obama's and his supporters' actions bring on God's judgment, but that we are already under judgment in the form of our corrupt Federal government and an increasingly corrupt and deceived electorate. Also, I am not sure Obama is demon-possessed, but his actions can certainly serve in preparation for the Antichrist. James Madison said,

Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.*

 * Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788. Quoted by Founding Father Quotes.

Related articles

• Exclusive - Palin: Congress Has America Caught Up in 'Endless Extortion Scheme'
• It's RICO Time! How To Stop The Obama Administration Crime Wave
• A Congressman With Guts Takes on Obama

On Wealth and Income Inequality

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin [1]

When tougher economic times come, as at present, we hear more about how we need to redistribute wealth and income to help those who have less. This is especially true under Barack Obama, who is on record as favoring redistribution. For him, this should have been part of the Supreme Court’s decrees during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. We are fortunate that it wasn’t, because that would have brought on a constitutional crisis and, if serious redistribution happened, the collapse of our economy.

Equality of wealth and income in a nation has never been and never will be a fact. It is a grasping at straws and striving after wind to attempt to realize it. If it could be made real, it would result in universal poverty, economic depression and degradation of everyone’s standard of living.

When people observe the different economic levels among people, their sympathy for those at the lower part of the spectrum sometimes leads them to believe that wealth should be confiscated from those at the upper end, and distributed to the less wealthy. Sometimes this motive drives political movements and tax policy. In some people’s religious efforts to help and serve the poor, they call upon government to help in their projects through grants, tax changes, etc.

We do not wish poverty on anyone, but we do recognize that some people are going to be poorer and some richer than others. Poverty is not necessarily a permanent or long-lasting condition, nor is wealth. There are opportunities and hazards which can sometimes change things quickly. I want to discuss reasons that forced redistribution of wealth, as advocated by some left-wing or liberal activists is a terrible and destructive idea.

Safety Net
To start, I will say that we need some kind of safety net to prevent and correct conditions of life-threatening poverty, i.e., hunger and homelessness. For those unable to work and support themselves, we rightly have programs to help them. For the homeless, the focus should be, not only on helping them in their homeless condition, but also in striving to help them to earn their way out of that condition. Most welfare help, other than for those permanently disabled, should be of a temporary and emergency type.

A High Standard of Living
According to distinguished Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises:
“Inequality of wealth and incomes is an essential feature of the market economy. It is the implement that makes the consumers supreme in giving them the power to force all those engaged in production to comply with their orders. It forces all those engaged in production to the utmost exertion in the service of the consumers. It makes competition work. He who best serves the consumers profits most and accumulates riches …

“This country enjoys the highest standard of living ever known in history because for several generations no attempts were made toward ‘equalization’ and ‘redistribution.’ Inequality of wealth and incomes is the cause of the masses’ well-being, not the cause of anybody’s distress. Where there is a ‘lower degree of inequality,’ there is necessarily a lower standard of living of the masses.” [2]

In general, it is unjust for the government to take the fruit of a person’s labor and give it to someone who has not earned it. It is, in fact, legalized thievery if it goes beyond a minimum reasonable amount. The best role of government in preventing and dealing with poverty, beyond a minimum safety net, is to maintain an environment of free market competition and to punish fraud and abuse.

Capitalism Is Not the Problem
Here is a brief conversation between Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue about the supposed drawbacks of capitalism:



There are so many examples of government interference and manipulation in the markets today that hardly any transaction completely escapes. Thus we have constant cost overruns, extreme tax rates, overbearing regulation and low incomes for many.

Any serious attempt to equalize wealth or income requires the imposition of socialism and the loss of economic freedom:
“The only alternative to this financial pressure as exercised by the market is direct pressure and compulsion as exercised by the police power. The authorities must be entrusted with the task of determining the quantity and quality of work that each individual is bound to perform. As individuals are unequal with regard to their abilities, this requires an examination of their personalities on the part of the authorities. The individual becomes an inmate of a penitentiary, as it were, to whom a definite task is assigned. If he fails to achieve what the authorities have ordered him to do, he is liable to punishment.” [3]

Inequality Is Not Unjust, and Is Necessary
The market economy requires an inequality of wealth and income. The pressures of the market serve as incentives to work, save, improve, advance, learn, and innovate. Without these incentives, under a socialist system, the incentives are toward gaining political power by exercising more control over others. The tendency is always to “innovate,” not by research, and more efficient production and marketing methods, but by more onerous requirements and expanding government power. This is always the tendency of bureaucracy. Bureaus try to perpetuate themselves by finding more things to regulate and more ways to control people.

Consider the fact that when the authorities determined that environmental pollution was a problem needing attention (as it was), the number and kind of regulations grew rapidly. Having achieved a good deal of cleaning up, government sought ever more authority to regulate and rule, and more hazards were “discovered,” even to the point that carbon dioxide, the gas we breathe out, has now been declared a pollutant, and the objectively stupid cap and trade legislation is actually being considered. We have reached the point where the “cure” is truly worse than the disease.

The same kind of bureaucratic growth tends to happen whenever government can take authority over activities that under capitalism are part of the private sector.

Private Sector Abuses Involve Government
The main abuses by the private sector have occurred when companies, professional associations, and unions and others have succeeded in getting government to enforce their economic interests, to the disadvantage of others, and in defiance of market forces, as discussed here by Ayn Rand with Mike Wallace in 1959:



Because of private-sector interests colluding with government, we have a lot of large and smaller evils such as:

1. Abuse of eminent domain: Taking property from citizens to provide to other citizens for their private gain, including spending public funds to finance sports arenas and events.
2. Handing out government funds to lure businesses to locate in a particular area.
3. Using the power of the Fed and the Treasury Department to bail out large private banks and take over private companies.
4. Government granting authority over a given profession such that a private association’s pronouncements have the force of law (e.g., AICPA, AMA, and ABA).
Also, these groups can restrict education and practice in these professions.
5. Labor unions employing government help to shake down employers for more benefits, beyond what the market alone would warrant.

If these entities could all operate without the force of government, outside of dealing with crime and abuse, the market would determine the results of economic activity. And the market can do a much better job than government. The more government control we have in any area, the less freedom. “That governs best which governs least.”

Liberal Offers
A major mistake people make when they accept the liberals’ claims that the government must provide what they need, is that they somehow trust politicians more than they trust private enterprise. Politicians are definitely not more trustworthy, nor, as a group, better-motivated than businessmen. Nor are they more knowledgeable, and generally they are much less knowledgeable about running a business operation of any kind. So when they set about to determine everyone’s income (think: pay czar), and wealth (IRS), we need to be prepared to work at gunpoint. Remember, current government officials think it will be all right to imprison people who refuse to buy insurance. That’s how much respect they have for our freedom.

Low-income people have many opportunities in this country. True, a lot of better opportunities are open to people who have inherited wealth or who are especially talented in some high-paying skill. There is always someone who has more and who does more than his fellows. But these are among the differences that make life interesting, and encourage people to strive for improvement, and to appreciate their accomplishments.

Many of the poorer people have items considered luxuries not long ago. Many items people of modest means have are of comparable quality to items rich people have. Even after all the liberals’ attempts to destroy incentive, most people want to try to succeed on their own, and don’t want a handout unless life leaves them no other choice. For those who need help, many charitable operations are at work. The Obama Administration hurts this by planning to reduce income tax deductions for charitable contributions, and allowing the economy to languish, making it harder for people to contribute to charities anyway.

Liberals buy votes by promising government benefits to “victimized” groups. People in these groups are often willing to give over control of much of their lives to the authorities in order to receive these promised benefits. The benefits prove to be less than expected, and less as time goes by, but these voters are trapped into thinking that they must rely on government, so they keep voting for those who make the promises.

Conclusion
The demagoguery about “income and wealth inequality” is appealing to some people who think they should be entitled to what others have, and that government should give it to them. It also appeals to people who want to be in charge of the redistribution, whether to gain power over others, or to feel good about themselves. Class envy is the very lifeblood of liberalism, as it is with communism. The exploitation of the “class struggle” is the whole process. Clinging to that narrow and misguided view is what has produced much of the economic and social failure in our society. The sense of entitlement and victimhood encouraged by liberals, their false promises, and exploitation of the powerless drive much of the feeling of helplessness and despair around us. People who should know better, including politicians, fall for the liberal premises that lead to frustration and discontent. Liberals have little to offer as economic solutions. The results of their tax-and-spend and welfare-state policies can be seen in places like Michigan and California, and are coming soon to a state near you.

[1] Quoted at Goodreads.com.

[2] Ludwig von Mises, “Inequality of Wealth and Incomes,” Ideas on Liberty, No.1. Irvington, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education. (May 1955) 83-88. Reprinted in Essays on Liberty, III. Irvington, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education. (1958)123-31. Reprinted on Mises.org, at http://mises.org/EFANDI/CH9.ASP

[3] Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Scholar’s Edition, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala., 1998, 285-286. Ebook available at Mises.org. Excerpt at http://mises.org/humanaction/chap15sec7.asp.

Photo: Portrait of Ludwig von Mises

FDR and the Great Depression, Barack Obama and the Great Recession

Ted Roelofs of The Grand Rapids [MI] Press reported as follows on a debate between authors Joseph Alter of Newsweek and Bloomberg columnist Amity Shlaes on the effectiveness of FDR’s Depression-era policies.

“Alter conceded Roosevelt made missteps.
But he argued there is no alternative to ‘massive’ government stimulus
when an economy is plunging.

“‘It would be nice if there was an alternative,’ he said.

“Shlaes maintained virtually nothing Roosevelt did helped pull the
United States out of the Depression, short of entry into World War II in
1941.

“Unemployment stood at 19 percent in 1938, despite the flurry of social
engineering Roosevelt spearheaded in the preceding years. By 1942 with
the massive war effort under way, it stood at about 5 percent.

“In her book [The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression], she argued Roosevelt's biggest failing was a ‘lack of faith in the marketplace….’” [1]

Examples for Obama?
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wasted no time getting to work on the Great Depression problem after taking office in 1933. He immediately declared a bank holiday, an idea he had rejected three days earlier when Herbert Hoover had suggested it. [2]

FDR’s policies worsened and prolonged the Depression. In spite of a strong and sustained effort, the remedies were mostly misguided, ineffective, and counterproductive. They were also short-sighted, not giving adequate consideration to other factors outside the immediate environment of a particular issue, or longer-term effects.

Of course, FDR inherited the Great Depression and Barack Obama inherited a recession and a financial meltdown. Obama’s was and is a difficult situation but there are some lessons that could be taken from history. He need not repeat all the previous mistakes.

Barack Obama’s economic policies have been referred to as “The New New Deal,” and Obama is apparently an admirer of FDR’s policies. In the numbered items below, I mention some of FDR’s policies (italicized) and make applications to current policies (non-italicized).

President Roosevelt was supposedly attempting to help the unemployed and the poor. His policies did economic injury to many workers and others in the following ways:

1. Minimum wage laws froze many workers, especially African-American, out of hiring possibilities.

Minimum wage laws still hamper employment today. Teen unemployment is the highest since the government started keeping records of this in 1948, over 25 percent. [3] Factors other than minimum wage laws have more effect, but minimum wage requirements exacerbate the problem.

2. Many lawsuits, anti-trust and the like were filed against large employers which undermined their ability to hire and pay workers. [4]

Left-leaning governments always want to go after large companies that might be commercially successful, wanting to assert power over them and tax them if they are profitable. Witness the government’s vendetta against Microsoft in recent years. The failing companies, such as Wall Street banks and the auto manufacturers, they want to “bail out,” i.e. take control at great taxpayer expense, saying they are “pulling the economy back from the brink,” and “restoring stability” to the financial system. Really? More likely, they have set the financial system and the American economy up for disastrous failure through unpayable debt.

We are a long way from seeing the “stability” they talk about. Also, The Obama Administration is greatly endangering national sovereignty through international arrangements on finance, “climate change,” etc. I do not like conspiracy theories, but the one about the international banking cartel, starting with the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers plotting to take over the world’s money and reduce the population to serfdom begins to have some plausibility. I don’t endorse it, but what would be different if it isn’t true? It is true that we are in danger of a massive economic collapse simply because of our national debt and endless deficits. Not all Obama’s fault, but he was on board with the bank bailouts and was the principal operator in the auto company takeovers.

According to The New York Times, “Beyond the $700 billion bailout known as TARP, which has been used to prop up banks and car companies, the government has created an array of other programs to provide support to the struggling financial system. Through April 30, the government has made commitments of about $12.2 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion — but also has collected more than $10 billion in dividends and fees.” [5] (emphasis theirs).

3. Under FDR, increasing tax rates put potential employers in a difficult position for hiring. Also, they could see that if they were successful, their profits would be largely taxed away. [6]

Every dollar a company pays in taxes is a dollar that is unavailable for hiring or investment in plant and equipment. Today’s employers face some of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, and see more coming as the Bush tax cuts expire. Also, they could hardly be blamed for waiting to see what happens with the Obamacare and cap and trade proposals before deciding on major hiring or investments. The business environment is very difficult and hardly improving in terms of employment.


4. Excise taxes were placed on many consumer goods. This especially hurt the poor.

We still have a lot of “hidden” taxes, on products and services. But the Democratic Congress also wants to tax sugar-sweetened drinks and other popular consumer items in connection with Obamacare. This would take more money out of the pockets of people they claim they’re trying to help. And these taxes are just the beginning. Even if they don’t pass their health care bill, they’ll still try to control everyone’s diet and shopping habits through costly taxes. And then there’s VAT that seems to be up for discussion.

5. FDR destroyed much food while millions were hungry. In an ill-advised attempt to create artificial shortages and thus raise prices, the government paid farmers to plow under 10 million acres of crops and to slaughter and discard six million farm animals. Then they paid farmers for not producing. [7]

Well, the Obama Administration hasn’t yet sunk to the level of destroying farm products. They do, as their predecessors did, still cling to unwarranted farm subsidies and government controls on farming. And they continue the previously existing harmful practices of mandates and subsidies for ethanol.

Bad Economics
According to Robert Higgs, “In their understanding of the Depression, Roosevelt and his economic advisers had cause and effect reversed. They did not recognize that prices had fallen because of the Depression. They believed that the Depression prevailed because prices had fallen. The obvious remedy, then, was to raise prices, which they decided to do by creating artificial shortages. Hence arose a collection of crackpot policies designed to cure the Depression by cutting back on production. The scheme was so patently self-defeating that it’s hard to believe anyone seriously believed it would work.” [8] (emphasis his).

FDR went a long way toward nationalizing industry, in effect, through the National Industrial Recovery Act, which was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote that, ‘extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.’ Congress ‘cannot delegate legislative power to the President to exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed.’” [9]

FDR unconstitutionally confiscated gold by an Executive Order, which also made it illegal to own most kinds of monetary gold. It did nothing to help, and amounted to legalized thievery. [10] This harmed individual savers and investors, and, more indirectly, workers. And it threatened and reduced everyone’s freedom. If gold can be confiscated, what’s to stop government confiscation of other things (over and above taxes), in the interest of “fairness,” of course.

Liberal governments see a problem and they think the federal government must act to correct it. Their corrections may benefit, temporarily, some group experiencing hardship, but what is usually ignored is the effect on others, and what their actions mean down the road. This recalls the “Forgotten Man” of William Graham Sumner:

“As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. As for A and B, who get a law to make themselves do for X what they are willing to do for him, we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but what I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. He is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdens which are laid upon him.” [11]

Henry Hazlitt quotes this and observes that in the 1930’s, the “forgotten man” label was applied to X. C was still forgotten [12] (Amity Shlaes uses this phrase in the title of her book.)

The Congress is currently considering legislation to mandate a week of annual sick pay for all employees, as a result of the swine flu scare. Many companies cannot afford to pay employees when they aren’t working, so if this passes, unemployment or underemployment will likely increase. But the squeaky wheel gets the grease. More government micro-management. Another reason to believe the government is less concerned about the economy than with finding excuses for expanding government power.

Unemployment was 3.1% before the stock market crash of 1929 and 24.8% when Franklin D. Roosevelt took office. The rate was in double digits until 1941. [13] The published rates do not count people who have given up looking for work or have taken part-time jobs.

Well, the Great Depression is over. World War II lifted America out of it. But the current recession is not over, except perhaps in some narrow technical sense according to some “experts.” And over or not, its ill effects linger, and from all indications will linger for some time. There are too many instances of Obama following FDR’s ill-advised prescriptions, when we should have learned better. FDR didn’t have a previous great depression in memory to serve as his example. Previous depressions were left to the market and recovery was fairly quick. But Obama has the example of the Great Depression. Circumstances and technologies change, but the laws of economics still apply. The sooner the government ends its love affair with deficit spending and embraces something more oriented toward free markets and individual liberty, the sooner things will begin to improve. But don’t hold your breath.


[1] Ted Roelofs, The Grand Rapids Press, “Authors debate: Did FDR’s social programs make the Great Depression worse?” 10/12/2009, at http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2009/10/authors_debate_did_fdrs_social.html.

[2] Robert Higgs, “How FDR Made the Depression Worse,” Feb. 1995, Ludwig von Mises Institute, at http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258.

[3] Catherine Rampell, The New York Times, “Teen unemployment at record level,” 09/08/2009, SF Gate, at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/07/BU6H19IVRT.DTL&type=business.

[4] Jim Powell, “Tough Questions for Defenders of the new Deal,” 11/06/2003, Cato Institute, at http://www.cato.org/research/articles/powell-031106.html.

[5] The New York Times, “Adding Up the Government’s Total Bailout Tab,” 02/04/2009, at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html.

[6] Powell, see [4].

[7] Ibid.

[8] Higgs, see [2].

[9] Ibid.

[10] David J. Heinrich, “FDR’s Heinous Crimes,” 10/21/2004, Mises Economics Blog,
at http://blog.mises.org/archives/002627.asp. Text of the Executive Order is here.

[11] William Graham Sumner, “The Forgotten Man,” 1883, The Forgotten Man and Other Essays, at The Online Library of Liberty, at
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1654&search=%22Forgotten+Man%22&chapter=108194&layout=html#a_2270750.

[12] Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008. Originally published by Harper & Brothers, 1946, page 179

Photo: Dreamstime.com. FDR statue

Sarah Palin Publishes Her Autobiography – More to Come

Sarah Palin has finished her 400-page autobiography called Going Rogue: An American Life, co-written with Lynn Vincent of World Magazine, a Christian publication, and to be released by Harper on November 17. [1]

I am looking forward to buying it, and would really like to meet Gov. Palin at a book signing. I have a lot of admiration for her, not only her outspoken expressions of her views, but her life story that thus far illustrates the success that is available in America to people who work hard and constantly to reach their goals. She is an extremely interesting person, I think. She can handle a gun or a fishing rod, she can negotiate and pressure oil company bigwigs, and as governor, she sought the best course for her state’s economy and the good of her constituents. She showed that she could interact effectively with people of many different responsibilities and social levels, and she generally accomplished what she seriously set out to do.

It is said that no good deed goes unpunished. And she has found out, following John McCain’s selection of her as his vice-presidential running mate, to shore up his conservative cred, and her subsequent striving for a modicum of freedom during the campaign, that the saying is true. Her good deeds were (1) to accept his offer to run on his ticket, (2) to inspire the conservative base, drawing bigger crowds than usual for campaign events, and (3) generally counterbalancing McCain’s liberal leanings.

For this, she was bad-mouthed by anonymous McCain staffers, relentlessly “investigated” and harassed on behalf of the Democrats, and shamelessly ridiculed, and had her family trashed in the media, and disrespected for no reason except fear of her. The left could not tolerate a truly attractive political personality on the conservative side like Sarah Palin. I don’t think they’ve ever engaged on the issues with her. Just insults, mostly. Even the so-called “conservative” beltway brainpower joined in to some extent.

Now, with the announcements about her book, the liberal tar and feather brigade has gone into action. They are rousing the leftist base (which has been pretty well roused all along about Palin), and some of the rank-and-file left are expressing outrage that Sarah Palin could be taken seriously. Just read the comments on the above-cited article.

But she cannot be taken lightly by the left and must be taken seriously. She is of great concern to them and they do fear her. Just as many more people would rather listen to Rush Limbaugh than Air America, many more people would rather go to see and hear Sarah Palin than some liberal, even the post-messianic and overexposed Barack Obama.
And most would find her observations and suggestions much more in keeping with their own values than anything they’d be hearing from the left.

I’m not sure why she resigned as governor, other than what she said about it. I’m not sure what her plans are concerning political office. But I hope she sells millions of books, makes millions of dollars and stays on the scene for a long time.

If you want to know what she thinks about various issues, she has a gift for expressing her views clearly and distinctly. Just look at her Facebook articles. She is a better-qualified leader than Barack Obama ever was, and in fact has held real jobs, balanced a budget, and prevailed over powerful opponents in the process of fighting corruption and getting favorable treatment for the people of Alaska. She chooses her battles carefully and is not inclined to back down.

Sorry, left-wingers. Sarah Palin isn’t going away any time soon. You’ll just have to deal with her.

[1] Hillel Italie, “Palin finishes memoir, ‘Going Rogue,’ out Nov. 17,” The Baltimore Sun (online), at http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/news/bal-palin-book-0928,1,465892.story

Photo: Dreamstime.com

If We Build It, They Will Come

Do the views of Colin Powell represent the Republican Party’s best way to future success? Is the party too narrow and exclusive?

Colin Powell is by any measure a distinguished American who, I think, has earned the right to be heard and his opinions considered. But his political prescriptions for the GOP are not the way to victory over the Democrats, especially if we follow his example and campaign for and vote for their Presidential candidate. Powell’s Republican credentials are subject to serious doubt as a result of his support for Obama, despite his claims to the contrary. The party is said to be too narrow in its outreach to various groups, but the GOP should base its appeal on what is best for America, not simply what best serves some group.

The future of the GOP, I believe, will be decided not by what interest groups or demographics the party tries to appeal to, but by the party’s ability to effectively support candidates who articulate conservative beliefs and then advance the cause after they are elected. Conservatives have a different view of the functions of government and public officials from that of liberals.

The liberal tendency is to rule over us to the point of oppression, for our own good, of course, controlling as many aspects of our lives as possible, from auto mileage to toilet tank size, and so on. Conservatives have several basic principles, none of which include micro-managing people’s daily activities or private companies, let alone nationalizing them. Conservatives would be more likely to privatize some things the government already tries to run. This is a distinction that is too often lost or overlooked, simply because we’ve been conditioned over a number of years to accept a far bigger role for the federal government than the Constitution permits or practical benefit warrants.

What the GOP needs is not so much a house-cleaning as some effective conservative leadership. “Moderate” Republicans might be happier as Democrats, but they’re not likely to leave the party in significant numbers. Meanwhile, conservatives must develop a stronger presence somehow, and figure out how to voice strong opposition to the truly destructive policies of the current administration.

If Republicans can’t strongly criticize the philosophy, policies, and actions of the President and the opposing party in Congress and elsewhere, what good are they serving? Despite the pronouncements of some “experts,” people will respond to clear, principled arguments of conservatism because conservatism reflects the beliefs of most of the American people (especially those outside of Washington, D.C.) to a substantial degree. Some Democrats will listen. Issues are plentiful and votes in great numbers are out there to be earned by politicians whose efforts are guided by principles instead of and polls and focus groups.