“The only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the type of programs they choose to overspend on.” – former Senator Bob Bennett, 1993.
“Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.” – American Communist Party, Goal #15 of 45 goals to destroy America, as documented in the book “The Naked Communist” by Dr. Cleon Skousen.
There was a time when a public figure who subscribed to goals or principles that had the possibility of undermining American liberties, constitutional principles, or our general way of life would remain quiet behind the scenes, forced to present an alternative persona altogether. Not too long ago, anyone who stood squarely against the principles and freedoms of the Constitution would be ostracized in regular society or worse. Apparently, some of the most radical, left-wing thinkers do not feel such subterfuge is necessary any longer. During Democratic National Party Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews a few weeks ago, she was asked point-blank by Matthews, “What is the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?”
Her answer was revealing. Not only did she not answer the question at all, she attempted to deflect the question by defining the upcoming debates and elections as a Democrat versus Republican issue. When asked again later in the week on another prominent news program, Meet the Press, Wasserman Schultz gave the exact same deflecting answer. So what gives? Why all the dancing around the question?
The truth is in 1993 when former Senator Bob Bennett made his quip that the reality between the parties made the joke valid and humorous. A wide difference in elected officials did not exist at that time, at least when it came to core issues that affected most Americans. Since the 2008 election, the joke seems to apply less and less. The far left, which has an ideology more in line with Marx than with Jefferson, has incrementally hijacked the goals, dialog and focus of the Democratic Party.
In Dr. Cleon Skousen’s book, The Naked Communist, he writes that the goal of Communism worldwide has been to undermine the United States to the point we would no longer oppose their ideologies, but would succumb to “big government” ideas progressively on our own. The agenda Skousen described so many decades ago appears to be active, organized and, apparently in view of the recent hard left shift in the Democratic Party, effective. One major problem with all of this is that the average voter is still a middle-of-the-road moderate leaning. But the Democratic Party’s dialog and agenda under President Obama, and now Hillary Clinton, contains a radical leftist flavor that despises the traditional strengths, morally, militarily, and economically that America represents.
So the question hangs in the air. Has the radical left, with heavy socialist or leanings in terms of political philosophy, essentially taken over the Democratic Party? Recent political dialog would suggest this is so. Obamacare is a form of socialized health care, which is destined to fail and be replaced by a single payer system as the “only alternative.” Government controlled health care is a cornerstone of socialist control. Hillary Clinton is parroting the “income equality” chimera in her speeches, painting corporations and the wealthy as prime suspects in the economic difficulties for many in America.
Pundits on conservative and liberal news programs alike are trying to support Wasserman Schultz by trying to prop up her answers with such daydreams as “the difference between Democrats and socialists is that Democrats just want to be guaranteed their fair share. We need to hold the one percent accountable and they need to ensure the economic prosperity of others.” Such answers are, in effect, the crux of European socialism.
It is a fantasy to think that any government can guarantee equal opportunity or equal prosperity. As all individuals may not possess or apply themselves to equal effort and ability. It is impossible for any system to guarantee everyone will come out equally on top. One simply cannot demand equality through legislation without accounting for unequal ability, skill, and motivation. Such rhetoric is nothing more than an attractive talking point for the gullible and uninformed. And yet, this far left brand of rhetoric seems to be gaining traction.
But the Clintons, Sanders, Obamas, or Shultzs do not want to answer such basic economic conundrums directly. They want to create a feel good dialog by creating a culture of blame and inciting differences that amount to nothing less than class warfare. “It is all the rich one percenters’ fault.” “Black lives matter.” “America has a real problem with income equality.” The finger-pointing goes on and on. And that dear readers, is the center point of all socialist dogma. By creating division and tension between sub-cultures or class, government grows by offering “solutions” to the strife they helped create. Check your history, you may just discover that Skousen was on point all along.
Wasserman-Shultz cannot answer the question honestly without arousing the suspicion of those who do not yet know the difference. This brief exchange should raise concerns with every political thinker. It begs the question, what exactly is happening to the power structures in our country? Have we allowed those who would have traditionally been viewed as antagonists to the Constitutional freedoms and free market ideas we enjoy become the ones guiding our political policies, and thus our lives? Every engaged citizen should examine the possibilities and implications.