Social programs are not only the domain of the Democrat Party. Teddy Roosevelt, Republican, had a "progressive" agenda. He said that the average citizen would get a fair share under his "Square Deal" policies. Sound familiar? Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the Great Depression to institute a massive welfare program fueled by Keynesian economic policy. While he mistakenly thought that he could end the Depression, which it took WWII to finally do, programs like the CCC and the WPA at least required people to work doing projects the government would have to pay for anyway. We remember Lyndon Johnson's Great Society as the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid but it also included federal education funding and, strangely enough, one of its goals was to eliminate racial injustice. It was an unintended consequence I'm sure but it had the opposite effect on racial injustice because it was another brick in the road of modern day slavery.
The Progressive Movement believes that only the government can create a well ordered society and with the careful guidance of self described intellectuals, have a planned economy that provides equally for all. When considered philosophically, the goals of Progressivism are noble. Who among us could argue with the notion of taking care of the poorest and most defenseless among us - those who cannot care for themselves. In reality those lofty ideals have been perverted by both parties (more subtly by Republicans than Democrats) to buy votes in support of re-election at any cost.
The result has been the gradual enslavement of four generations of Americans, who now think that the role of government is to take care of them from cradle to grave. They have learned to live within the system and are incapable of taking care of themselves, even if they had the desire to do so. Our political class wants to keep it that way and even increase the numbers of those on the public dole. To the extent they are successful, they have a guaranteed voting block The class warfare rhetoric, the vote for me because I will give you free stuff - don't vote for them because they will take the free stuff away, appeals directly to and energizes this political base.
Under slavery in the traditional sense, slaves bristle under captivity and abuse and long for freedom. The insidious result of the slavery created by our welfare state is that people become more and more dependent and more and more docile. They lose their desire to achieve and provide a better existence for themselves and their families. The only thing that causes them to bristle is the thought of someone taking away their subsistence. That very notion is destructive to America. Our Founders vision for America was for minimal government and an environment where Americans could work, worship and create for themselves and their families their own version of "the pursuit of happiness".
What is not explainable to me is why those supposed voices for minorities, including Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, aren't outraged over programs whose end result diminishes those groups they pretend to serve and dooms them to a slavery that's every bit as real as the plantation era slavery of our past. The current plantation "master" is Barak Obama and the plantation overseers are Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Where is the latter day Emancipation Proclamation for these people? It doesn't seem likely we will see the call for their liberation anytime soon. When people like Alan West, Deneen Borelli, Alveda King, Herman Cain, Angela McGlowan, and Star Parker, raise the issue, they are vilified. They have committed the unconscionable sin of being black and conservative and are openly and viciously attacked by the left.
When I raise an issue like this, I usually have a solution in mind that seems clear to me. I do not for this one. It took generations to get a major part of our society to this dependency and it will take generations to reverse, it if it can be done at all. It is more likely that reform will be forced on us because, like Greece, we are very close to being out of money with which to fund these programs. When that happens, the resulting chaos will be like the Reconstruction era South after the Civil War.
Conservatism versus Progressivism has never been a single party issue. Eisenhower is responsibhle for the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1960, which destroyed the responsibilities of having a sponsor for every immigrant's welfare, the immigrant's obligations to actively seek work and to learn English as a primary language. Nixon signed more entitlement Bills than LBJ.
I for one do not believe in the vast conspiracy of a one world government started by FDR and the U.N. I believe each President has his own views and his own alliances with influential people. Obama is the modern day Woodrow Wilson, which carries an extreme socialist / facist agenda. Even the Roosevelts in my view are more than a Hamilton in the time of the Framers. I do not believe they wanted to destroy the constitution and start from scratch. They believed in a nanny state. It is not without great importance to note that the decline in moral fortitude in each successive generation since the founders correalates perfectly with the severity of government intervention being accepted. The work ethic, personal resonsibility, community spirit, extended family structure, all boil down to this. Without these, it is impossible to garner any real self esteem, and without this, it is easy to accept crusts of bread in exchange for freedoms.
This one world government started with Clinton, and was helped by the weak leadership of both Bush Presidencies. Obama and his handlers see this time as one of fortune for them to push hard for their world goverrnment. This can only happen during times of severe fiscal strife, and he has come out and told us what his plans would do if implimented. What he is not telling us is the mandatory consequences that always follow the first domino. The laws of free market economics are simple. Any 5th grader can understand them. It only has to follow that this destruction of our foundation is intentional and planned in a predictable chronological order. Their philosophy has always failed when enough dominos fall, and the obvious becomes to transparent for their friends in the media to cover up, their slave base revolts, realizing for the first time that they have been duped. The falling of the percentile of voters in every catagory owned outright by the Democrats in the recent two years is proof that the last domino has fallen in their covert plan. Now comes the line in the sand, and what lengths each side is willing to go to win. Alinsky states any means to justify the ends, but to do this, one must truly believe in the movement. Many, possibly even most, only feel this is right. Only the politbureau is soon left to fight off the pitchforks and torches. Conservatives on the other hand, know they are right, and have faith - religious faith, to push them to victory.
The major arguement this author gives which I disagree with is the length of time it takes to get back on track. The progressives agenda is anti-free market, anti-Bill of Rights, and this makes them pursue their agenda in slow increments. When the tides change, getting back on the right track will happen much faster than the decline of our nation. To get back to reality based economics and be able to compete on a global scale, we have to get or manufacturing sector back up and running. This is already happening in the right to work states. I have a very close childhood friend in the private sector unons. The indoctrination he has recieved leaves him so ignorant of truth I hardly recognize him hen we talk over the phone. He literally speaks in progressive talking points and does not see that his pay and pension is unfair to the vast majority of others. He blames Bush for everything. He is completely blind to the specific facts which alines with each leader in our government. Try and educate him, and he just covers his ears and closes his eyes as if the penalty of death awaits, all due to the union indoctrination.
If we are to win this war, we must put aside all empathy for these people. It is for the good of th vast majority now, and everyone in the future. The republicans must take off the gloves. We must be there in their corner to back them up.
I would offer that more than being suductive there is a degree of envy for those who get that dependency.
"You mean I can't get food stamps and health care because I make too much money? I should just quit my low paying hard working job and live like that guy."
Yup - it is the patient fishermen on the left who will wait days for a nibble, then reel his catch in as slowly as needed so not to lose his trophy. It is the only way they can slip these obvious anti-american Bills through without being tarred and feathered.
"started with Clinton, and was helped by the weak leadership of both Bush Presidencies"
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. Not Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama.
Otherwise very well presented.
I intentionally put the order out of sequence to show that it is a Democrat priority. I never mentioned Reagan because the ideals which rule now did not exist. The Bush 41 and 43 legacies will be remembered for the lack of leadership in restraining government spending. Reagan had no choice with the Dems having a 74 seat majority in the House and then taking the Senate in his final two years. Doubling tax revenues in 8 years is quite a feat.
In an admittly lame defense of the Bush's, they never had a real majority to force a conservative agenda through. That is if they had a mind to. When the republicans forced Newt out and Kasich and then Armay left out of frustration of their own party, it was pretty clear the right was now very close to center, with some all the way over to the dark side.
It is the Bush team as well as the lame campaigns by both Dole and McCain which leads some of us to believe in the theory that the two parties are really only one - progressive and progressive lite. Hopefully 2010 and this year will turn this trend back to real conservatism.