Time to Rebrand the Democratic Party as Socialists
Where do we drive the line between Liberalism and Socialism?
Liberalism
is an idealistic political philosophy born after the defeat of
Napoleon, a philosophy of freedom, which epitomized individual liberty,
freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and free elections.
Socialism,
on the other hand, is a political philosophy and economic system that
promotes egalitarianism -- a theory of economic equality. Modern
socialism originated in the eighteenth century as a working-class
economic and political movement that opposed private property and
criticized the effects of industrialization on society. It is usually
defined as “common ownership of the means of production.”
With
the passage of time, liberalism evolved into a broader vision of an
ideal society, a brilliant future that also included economic equality.
After the American liberals crossed the threshold of economic equality,
which is incompatible with individual liberty, there was no longer a
principal difference between the two ideological vistas.
Indeed,
it was the point of no return; and like a fall that cannot be stopped
halfway, it signified the evolution of the fruitful coexistence of
liberalism and socialism in this country into an inevitable merger of
the two ideologies.
Winston
Churchill insightfully described the divergence: “Socialism seeks to
pull down the wealth; liberalism seeks to rise up poverty.”
Therefore we shall not be confused by the ideological taxonomy.
The
implications of the de facto conversion of liberalism into socialism
were profound; socialism acquired a pragmatic political cover that
preserves its enduring appeal, found acceptance by the American Left,
and was gradually incorporated into the policies of the Democratic
Party. Henceforth, socialist principles, built on concepts originally
advanced by liberals, became the guiding factors of the party’s economic
and social programs.
Back
in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, made a stunning
validation of the ideological link between liberalism and socialism, and
inadvertently acknowledged the inherently fraudulent nature of the
American liberalism when he clairvoyantly asserted that
The American people would never vote for socialism,… [but] under the name of liberalism [nowadays rebranded as progressivism], the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day, America will be a socialist nation without even knowing how it happened.
The
Democratic Party has been slowly accomplishing the amalgamation since
the 1930s, dismantling American Judeo-Christian values and fomenting the
ideological transformation of this country via public education,
endorsement of socialist policies, proliferation of the welfare state
and polarization of racial relations. The progression gained force with
Franklin Roosevelt’s Economic Bill of Rights, which had its ideological
roots in Russian Bolshevism.
Incidentally,
this was a period of widespread infiltration of the U.S. government by
communists, communist sympathizers, and NKVD (predecessor of KGB)
agents, to the extent that by the1940s, to some erudite observers, the
American government looked like an extension of the Kremlin. Overzealous
NKVD agents, unable to contain their excitement, called FDR “the
Kerensky of the American revolution,” to be replaced by Lenin.
Just
as Norman Thomas predicted in 1927, the socialization of the Democratic
Party progressed to the point that in 1944 this unimpeachable authority
on American socialism announced his resignation:
I no longer need to run as a Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.
Socialism,
a metamorphosis of liberalism, disguised in some corners as social
justice, neoliberalism, and in others as progressive or “helper of the
poor,” is now both the “basis” of the Democratic Party and the “source”
of its moral decay.
During
Obama's era, the waning of moral vigilance has empowered the Democratic
Party to accelerate its ideological conversion into the socialists.
With
the chief components of socialism firmly in place – a welfare state,
high taxation and intrusive government regulations aimed at control over
the health care, financial and energy sectors -- the Party was about
to take the nation in a direction decidedly not in keeping with the
course charted by the Founding Fathers.
Although
the election of Donald Trump has put a hold on the socialization of the
USA, the socialist mission has not ceased. The Democratic Party has
embraced a strategy of fanatical resistance. The Democrats are no longer
acting as a political party -- they are the socialist cause. Therefore,
it is of paramount importance to recognize the Democratic Party for
what it really is, and what it means for posterity.
Whether
its policies are called liberal or progressive, or democratic, in terms
of the issues and, especially in terms of tactics, the party became a
plagiarizing scum of Lenin’s faction of the Russian Social Democratic
Labor Party (RSDLP), or Bolsheviks, which coincidently also had
“democratic” in its party name. A commonality of the ideological
vocabulary of the Democratic Party leadership with Marxism; visceral
hatred of capitalism and seductive promises of miraculous fulfilment of
egalitarian dreams leaves little doubt about the Party becoming the
source and spirit of a Marxist awakening.
No comments:
Post a Comment