axcess.me™
Eagle Watch » Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?

The short answer is yes because he would replace history’s most successful economic theory (as measured by generalized prosperity and systemic economic growth), with its least successful (as measured by the same metrics).

Now to the important question – what is a socialist?

In strict theoretical terms, socialism is the abolition of private property, everything being owned by the government. Functionally, socialism consists of the government owning “the tools of production”, that is, all business units. Politically, socialism encompasses government control of the economy. In real-world terms, it is the degree to which decision-making is centralized versus individualized.

Socialism is, by any definition, un-American. In the very first document penned by the Founders, they made unambiguously clear their views on the supremacy of the people over government by stating as unalienable rights Life (defense), Liberty (political freedom) and the Pursuit of Happiness (economic freedom). The Articles of Confederation, the second document penned by the Founders as a group, clearly demonstrates their view as the “Pursuit of Happiness” meaning a meritocracy when they stated that residents of the several states would enjoy the full range of rights and privileges granted residents of the United States, save “vagabonds, paupers and fugitives from justice.” This primacy of the people over the government is reaffirmed in their third document, the Constitution of the United States of America, where the Tenth Amendment (penned by the authors) states that powers not enumerated in the Constitution do not belong to the government. All of this is further discussed at length in the Federalist Papers, authored by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, which discussed the Constitution with the residents of New York prior to its ratification.

Does this endorse unfettered laissez faire markets? No, it does not. The Constitution specifically gives the federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce, for example, and yields to the states the authority to regulate business within their boundaries. Their vision was one of placing jurisdiction to the closest practicable level of government to the problem: federal jurisdiction over only those issues not adjudicable by the states; state jurisdiction over only those issues not adjudicable by the counties; county jurisdiction over only those issues not adjudicable by towns and cities. It is a minimalist view of government, the only way to maximize individual liberty – the point of the Enlightenment and the purpose of the Revolution.

The philosophical differences between “government knows best” and the American vision couldn’t be clearer. What about practical differences?

The Founders were imminently practical people. They were farmers, merchants and shopkeepers. They understood that local solutions to local problems were always more efficient, fairer and swifter than those made at a distance. They wanted to solve their own problems, decide their own fate. They were tired of constantly having their successes punished by central government – the Stamp Act, the Molasses Act, the Stationary Tax, and all the other Intolerable Acts. They saw this as not just an attribute of an indifferent British Crown, but a natural devolution of centralized governance over free peoples. The best way to keep governance responsive to the governed (as opposed to its own desires) is to keep it as close to the people as possible. That a person’s grievance in Cleveland can be addressed from Washington, like gardening from the second floor balcony with tools tied to sticks, doesn’t mean it should be. The more remote, the bigger government gets, the more self-interested, the less efficient, the less responsive it gets.

In addition to, again, handing ones destiny to absentee rulers, erecting a highly centralized government ensures a bloated, unresponsive, inefficient and self-interested bureaucracy that is closer to the Crown than the Constitution. “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” is a subsistence outlook, devoid of hope or achievement. It also assumes an altruism of human nature that just isn’t there, hence the Ten Commandments, Hammurabi’s Code, and all that has followed.

Is the president a socialist? I don’t think so, but his programs are definitely aimed at taking day-to-day decisions out of the hands of individuals and moving them to Washington. His vision of America is vastly less generous toward the governed than it is toward the government. His view of government ensures decreasing political and economic freedom to the governed. I don’t view his philosophy of governance to be wrong because it's evil, rather to be insidious because it doesn’t work.

Posted 02-23-2010 11:24 by Eagle Watch
Filed under: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Libby wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 02-24-2010 3:14

I don't think the Founding Fathers when they penned all those "rules of governing" documents were even aware of the concept of Socialism.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the theory of Socialist Govt. attributed to Karl Marx? The Founding Fathers were concerned with the abuses of [dictatorial] Monarchies. Can you name an example of a sovereign country that was socialistic at the time of the F. Fathers?

I totally disagree with your philosophical position and it's conclusions stated in paragraph 7. But my objections  would entail a lengthy explanation from me and I'm not sure it would be of much interest to you or those who agree with you.

And lastly, how do you explain the fact that the majority of Americans voted for Barack Obama when he made it clear that his vision of governance included all those "socialistic" ideals in the previous two years before he was elected? They clearly felt that the problems the country faced needed to be "fixed" by the Federal govt. Perhaps they didn't understand the inherent "evils" that exist within the socialist concept? And  were they just stupid and hoodwinked? What do you think?

Eagle Watch wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 02-24-2010 3:34

You’re right that socialism wasn’t a formed economic theory at the time of the Founders.  The point is that the theory of socialism cuts counter to Founders’ view of popular sovereignty (i.e., the supremacy of the people over the government).  Just an example of how the Constitution, as written, is flexible enough to adapt to new developments.  

Of course, I can’t comment on your paragraph-7 comment without knowing your complaint.  I would be delighted to discuss it with you … I’m always interested in your ideas on these matters.  

Barack Obama ran a masterful campaign and was a compelling candidate.  I don’t think the American people fully understood just how fundamental his “fundamentally change America” turned out to be, and I think that is shown by the polling on each of his ideas as they are rolled out.  I don’t think anyone conceived of trillion-dollar programs back-to-back during a recession.  I don’t think anyone conceived of banking and auto takeovers, followed by proposals to takeover healthcare and energy.  I don’t think anyone conceived of 30-some czars doing the work of confirmed cabinet secretaries while reporting only to the West Wing.  And no, I don’t think the American people are stupid, as shown by their reaction to those very programs.  

Libby wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 02-25-2010 4:12

First, I'd like to address your response in your last paragraph. You have confirmed that you think the people who voted for Barack Obama were both stupid and hoodwinked. You didn't need to cite all those [horrendous] examples of his "abuse of power" to me. I understand your reasoning for doing so, though. "At last! Those stupid hoodwinked people are awakening to the fact that Big Govt. is a disastrous evil that will be the ruination of America!". I get your point. The problem with your theory is it ignores all of "us" who I assume you don't classify as stupid--just hoodwinked.  Now the question is are we in the minority? You sincerely hope so. And I'm sure you would cite Tea Party activity to confirm that "fact". Fine. Whatever floats you boat...

To address paragraph seven: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" isn't necessarily a subsistence outlook. It is if it is imposed on people and they naturally would resent that. If it is a voluntary strategy willingly entered upon in order to better the chances of the group's survival and improve the group's welfare, then it is a sophisticated and intelligent mechanism to achieve that goal, IMO. It requires some things that are anathema  to those who believe that the best survival strategy is based on an individual's power and prowess. "Rugged individual--Survival of the fittest" in other words...It requires a level of  cooperation and sacrifice and yes, a degree of humility and compassion from the participants. I am of the opinion that you think these traits are weak and dangerous human traits. It is a tribal concept. And I agree with you that it is altruistic in nature.

Your argument that "altruism" is somehow beyond the capability of humanity to achieve isn't necessarily valid I think. You cite the Ten Commandments and Hammurabi's Code as proof that human beings are not altruistic and need rules to control their animalistic natures in order not to annhilate each other. Isn't that in and of itself an argument that human beings are willing to restrain their basic instincts and realize there is a need to be controlled? They were not forced to live by those precepts. They willingly embraced those rules. Did they not?

I'll continue my argument tomorrow. I think this is enough for today.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 02-25-2010 5:52

First of all, I expressly stated that I DO NOT consider the American people to be stupid – that’s the line of hard left who can only site that as the reason why we aren’t salivating at the prospect of being turned into drones at the behest of “government knows best”.  I don’t consider the left to be “hoodwinked”, just wrong on these issues.  

We have voluntary helping of the poor now, it called charity, and dollar-for-dollar, per capita spending, however you want to measure it, Americans are the most charitable people on Earth.  We could, and would do even more if government wasn’t crowding private giving out of the market with its mandatory programs.  I do not consider mandated “giving” to be weak, just horribly inefficient.  Seventy percent of those dollars being absorbed by the bureaucracy, the most advantaged by these programs are the government types who operate them, not the poor.  

Yes, laws are a voluntarily entered into limiting of freedom in order to join a given community.  “Voluntarily” being the operative word.  The American people are telling Washington that we are emphatically not volunteering for vast nationalization of the private economy in trade for whatever the argument d’jour.  

Where is the hope, the promise of achievement, or the bettering of oneself in “from each according to ability to each according to his need”?  “Each” means everybody.  We are all expected to labor at the best of our ability in return for someone else’s idea of our “need”.  Sounds elitist to me.  

Libby wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 02-26-2010 3:51

I think this discussion is getting convoluted and somewhat off-target. Or rather, it's getting back on-target. I have attempted to make it into a philosophical debate instead of sticking to the political issues. That's Ok. I'd rather talk about the political issues, anyway.  

I have a question: Who "owns" the American People? Right now, you on the right claim you do. Everything you purport. Every issue you try to champion you preface with "The American People don't want that!" You (plural) are the sole interpreter of what "they" want. "They" are on your side, you say. You still have not explained why "they" would choose to vote the way they did in Nov. 08 and 07 and 06 since they are neither stupid nor hoodwinked. I guess they followed the siren-song of the LEFT? Isn't that either stupid or hoodwinked? Oh! I know...they were WRONG and now they've seen the error of their ways!

And then there are those like me who still think of ourselves as "American People" who don't agree with your "American People"...What do you classify us as? Other than WRONG, I mean...misled, I suppose. Maybe. I don't see myself and my think-alikes being led back into your fold though...And the question still remains (IMO) which "American People" are in the majority?

And oh yes! I didn't forget about that voluntary helping of the poor [aka] charity idea. It's a really great idea and I'm so glad it's there to help all those poor. No one's going to starve, that's for sure. And no one's going to be turned away from a hospital, and no one's going to be left destitute out on the street to sleep on a park bench in our society. Charity worked very well in the 19th century [?]. And as far as you're concerned it still works well enough. And looking at "our" wonderful record of throwing more private dollars into it per-capita than any other country in the world, what's to complain about? As you have pointed out, if the government involves itself any results will be ineffiicient  and wasteful of our dollars. God forbid. Don't waste my money!  There's no need. Charity WORKS!  Need I say more?

I wonder why the "American People" who think like me consider it insufficient? I wonder why we are bothered by images of people standing in lines at soup kitchens and images of people lined up at missions hoping to spend the night on a cot rather than sleeping on a park bench or in a cardboard box? If these third-world images of poverty in our midst bothers us, I guess it's because we are "elitists". Our silly compassion gets in the way of our common sense, no doubt. I guess I'll have to work on that "elitist" thing if I want to be one of your "American People"...  

Eagle Watch wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 02-26-2010 4:14

I’m just answering your questions.  As to who “owns” the American people … I’m not sure I understand the question.  My use of the term in this debate is merely reflecting poll after poll that asks about favorability on the House or Senate bills being passed.  I thought we had discussed the ’06 vote.  But again, the turnover in Congress was due, I think, to the failure of the Republican Party to reflect their stated values.  They got caught up in the very things they say they don’t like about Democrats, and they paid at the polls.  “09 was as much an anti-Bush vote as pro-Obama vote, I think.  Some on the right warned about far left philosophy and inexperience, but as the media did scant little vetting of his candidacy, they were pretty much shouting into an empty room.  

My point on charity is that private giving is far more efficient than government giving.  Central government doesn’t do this sort of thing very well.  Government can’t create prosperity, it can only allow it to happen.  An excellent example is their attempt to do just that – the “stimulus” and “jobs” bills.  They can’t create the causes for hiring, they can only create temporary government jobs that end as soon as the “stimulus” or “jobs” bills run out of money.  Poverty is a relative thing.  We will never be rid of those who have more or less than others.  

TVNews wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 02-28-2010 21:02

EW,

You are right. The forefathers did in fact exclude socialism. From the plan. I'd never thought about it that way before.

Eagle Watch wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 02-28-2010 22:35

It has always amused me that a far left so fond of quoting Franklin – “those who would trade security for liberty, deserve neither” – when referring to national defense is so willing to yield their freedom to a socialist government – cradle-to-grave economic “security”.  

I had an economics professor who told us the test on socialism was going to be a “ball-breaker – names, dates, places, formulae – everything”.  And he was right.  When he posted the grades, everyone got a C.  The football players cheered and everyone else groaned!  When the reaction died-down, he asked, “Anyone learn anything about socialism?”  

When reward is divorced from effort, effort becomes superfluous.  

Libby wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-01-2010 1:57

Don't forget this other quote from Franklin, "We had all better hang together or we will surely hang separately..." Just sayin'

Libby wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-01-2010 2:30

My reference to "the American People" was to point out a propaganda tactic that is being used by the Right. Everything they attempt to do and everything they say is couched in the phrase, "The American People" [Don't want this! Or agree with us!]...Everything that  comes out of Mitch McConnell's or John Bonier's mouth is prefaced with it. You never hear them or anyone on their side  (and I include FIX-NEWS and Rush Limbaugh in this observation) cite a poll or survey simply saying "The people, or the voters, or the citizens". They always include the adjective AMERICAN. Now why is that? Obviously, it is meant to insinuate that if you don't agree with their position you are unAmerican....[aka] not Patriotic...[aka] The Enemy...Now who would want to be classified as that? Better get on board, people! And so I asked well then, where does that leave me? Obviously within the "derogatory-label" group. That's what I meant.  

Eagle Watch wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-01-2010 4:27

I don’t know what they “mean” when they say “the American people” in that context, but if it bothers you, I will use the “overwhelming majority of the American people” in the same context in the future, or “61.3% of the American people”, or non-Democrat American people”, or some such phrase so as to specifically not impugn those in the minority on this issue.  Hope that helps.  

Eagle Watch wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-01-2010 4:31

I’ll see that and raise you “We have given you a republic … if you can keep it”, just sayin'  

jim® wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-01-2010 22:18

I'll see you EW and raise you two:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin

"The country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln

As someone said, "Just saying..."

Eagle Watch wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-02-2010 1:59

An interesting juxtapositioning, jimr, as the former will lead to the latter.  Unfortunately, the Democrats have adopted the former as a recruiting tool – the more people they can make dependent on government, the more people they will make beholden to the Democrat Party.  This could also explain why they favor situational ethics over a fixed sense of right and wrong.  Accepting money you didn’t earn, forcibly taken from someone who did, doesn’t seem as unpalatable; and everything can be rationalized so that nobody is responsible for their own actions.  Yeah … that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind.  

Libby wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-02-2010 2:10

I surrender! You two are the undisputed authorities when it comes to quotes from the Founding Fathers, for sure! Even worse, I'm not a gambler and don't play poker, so I think I'd better shut up and just "fold". LOL

TVNews wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-02-2010 19:26

It wasn't just the founding fathers. Check out this quote from the 1700s...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

–author unknown (often mis-attributed to 18th century Scottish writer/laywer, Alexander Tylter)

Eagle Watch wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-03-2010 0:53

What disappoints me is the stunning speed with which we went from the “Greatest Generation” to the “Me Generation” – a single generation!  The people who swept fascism from the Earth, went to the Moon and developed digital electronics spoiled their children, and in a stroke we went from the poster child for self-reliance and rugged individualism to a nation that tends to vilify those very qualities as being somehow “selfish”.  

There is a groundswell of ordinary folks who are trying to get us back on track, but they are up against a strong headwind of vested interests in the decaying status quo.  “American exceptionalism” refers to ours being the only nation founded on a creed (individual liberty) rather than a pedigree.  In our rush to mediocrity, we are actively replacing that creed with political correctness and hand outs.  

It saddens me.

Libby wrote re: Does it Matter if the President is a Socialist?
on 03-03-2010 3:01

Apt observations from both of you. I'm enjoying this back-and-forth between you very much. And I hope you will continue. It's refreshing to read your opinions without my interjections which only muddy the waters and offer up a willing target for an attack.

Add a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Remember Me?

axcess.me™ is a trademark of Axcess Internet®
The views expressed on personal blogs are the property of the owner and are subject to this disclaimer.