Many pundits think that the Democrat party becomes more socialistic every day. That is, if in fact there is a consistent and well-articulated (transparent) philosophy of the Democrats, it would in fact be socialistic. It would be a redefined statism, including an ever-growing federal government more and massive legislation, control by tens of thousands of regulations and of course active and aggressive, and independently acting agencies of government within or without constitutional or legislative authority. In short, more power and control would be vested in the federal government and that power and control would be exercised by the very few, an oligarchy if you will, manipulating power above and around the very Congress itself.
The voice of the party at least for now is Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders from New Hampshire is an open and avowed socialist. He unabashedly says so. Sanders wants to move the Democratic Party left, far left, even radical left. He challenges leading candidate Hillary Clinton to do the same. Clinton listens, understands the ever-growing popularity of Sanders and begins slowly to move left, more aggressively so in her political positions, but very carefully. The country waits for her to identify herself, articulate the strong and transparent political message and create a platform, like Sanders has done, which defines who she is and what she believes. No one really knows because Clinton talks in generalities, using over and again the old clichés, careful as always not to go deep or meaningful, typically Clinton. It is all about the power of the Presidency and not the platform.
Senator Sanders is currently drawing the largest crowds of any candidate in either party. Recently, some 28,000 people attended a Sanders political rally in Los Angeles. Another 28,000 people turned out to see him in Portland, Oregon. When Sanders campaigned in Seattle, 15,000 people came to see and hear. No matter say the Sanders critics, the conventional wisdom is what Bernie Sanders did for the Democrat Party nomination for President is destined to fail. His progressive base, critics say, is too white and too small for a party that places a premium on diversity. Interesting, is it not, that already, this early in the campaigning, race comes into play. For Sanders, say the critics, his problem is the fact that his message of a new and progressive socialism appeals too much to whites!
And, one should never forget, say the critics that the Democratic establishment has already settled on Hillary Rodham Clinton as the candidate of choice.
And, maybe the critics are right. The Sanders rally in Seattle was disrupted by BLACK LIVES MATTER, protestors suggesting that Sanders is in fact too white in his message, not caring enough about blacks or other so-called minorities so that real challenges lie ahead. More so, the critics say that Bernie Sanders can’t win because America is not ready to elect an avowed and transparent socialist-radical as President. But, say others, American elected the most radical progressive President in its history in 2008, and then again in 2012, a man perhaps even more statist and socialist (big government) in thinking and political action than Sanders himself. If America can elect an Obama, why can’t America elect a Sanders who was openly socialist-statist when Obama kept it such a closed secret.
The SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA was officially founded at or about 1900 and nominated labor leader Eugene Debs for President five times in the ensuing elections. Debs never won even one of the votes of one state, but he did win almost 6% of the popular vote in 1912. Failing miserably on the national scene, the Socialist Party elected about 1,200 candidates to local offices during those two decades. The challenged America with political cries for income redistribution and the nationalization of natural resources. But they were never able to compete with Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and his coalition of big labor, blacks and rural whites in the South. America, especially in the Great Depression era, wanted economic growth, not a cradle-to-grave welfare state. America wanted jobs and income opportunities, not more government welfare spending.
But in recent years, socialist parties have blossomed in every important country in Europe. Socialist politicians have been able to mobilize mass support for expanding the power of the state, both to provide welfare services and perhaps even more importantly, to restrain the power of the free market. Critical economic decisions would be made by government and not by business. No matter what happened in Europe, American socialists “cast their seed on barren ground.”
But by 1980, America had had enough of FDR’s New Deal and Lindon Johnson’s Great Society programs and the rapid growth and control of government. Ronald Reagan won the Presidency in 1980 on:
A WAVE OF RESENTMENT AGAINST BIG GOVERNMENT
Taxes were drastically reduced. Government was downsized both with regard to personnel-employees and especially rules and regulations. More control and initiative was returned to private markets and free enterprise. Regan promised jobs, economic growth, financial opportunities and a new sense of the individual and the entrepreneur. America responded wholeheartedly, and the economic growth and the eight years of the Regan Presidency was indeed astonishing. Even the Democratic Party sought to distance itself in those healthy economic years from socialism and statism and many Democrat Senators and congresspersons supported the Reagan program and politically participated in that booming economic revival.
But it seems as though the Democrats now no longer wish to distinguish themselves from socialists, or socialism and in fact, are beginning to embrace the political and economic tenets of Eugene Debs (circa 1900) and are listening carefully to the Sanders message, his progressive agenda that includes tax increases, single-payer healthcare, a 50% reduction in military spending and a nationally controlled energy policy among many others. The main mantra is income-inequality. Beginning with Obama in 2008, the Democrats seem obsessed by that political and economic ideology. In short, more and higher taxes and more and greater regulations are the two keys to the new Democrat-fostered statism.
Interestingly, MSNBC, that rank liberal-radical cable channel in the person of Chris Matthews no less interviewed one Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) what the difference was between a Democrat and a Socialist. Wasserman refused to answer. Matthews pressed Wasserman further by asking her:
“I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is? A Democrat like Hillary and a Socialist like Bernie Sanders. What is the difference?”
Wasserman of course refused to answer, once again. But that indeed will be critical to the redefinition of the Democrat Party, redefining what the party is, what it believes, what its political platform will be in an open and transparent way, and whether or not the Democrats will openly embrace socialism and statism as Bernie Sanders wants them to do. If in fact the Democrats have transparency and integrity, they will openly state their beliefs so that America could finally understand and vote upon the fundamental differences between Democrat and Republican. Democrats in fact stand for socialism. Republicans for the rights and opportunities of individual more so than the control of the state. Democrats stand for statism, the growth, control and power of the state including and especially economically. Republicans stand for free enterprise, free markets, the freedom of individuals to do business and make business decisions, lower taxes, less government spending and most importantly, less rules, regulations and controls. Those are in fact clear and fundamental party differences which, if honestly articulated, would allow Americans to vote knowing clearly and exactly what they would get.
Get this. 88% or almost 9 out of 10 Americans think that the number one issue facing America is:
THE ECONOMY AND CREATING NEW JOBS
So say the Wall Street Journal and NBC News. The economy needs to be energized, empowered and removed from government control including taxes and regulations. But Bernie Sanders wants the government to control the economy and Sanders proposes new federally controlled legislation which would invest (the federal government), $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure. Says Sanders:
“At a time when our roads, bridges, water systems, rail and airports are decaying, the most effective way to rapidly create meaningful jobs is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.”
It will take, says Sanders, $1 trillion to accomplish that, and of course that would mean new and higher taxes, yet another penalty on the free economy, and of course, more government control a la FDR and LBJ. Sanders would, as President, pledge to America that he would make that happen.
Sanders also proposes a minimum wage of $15 per hour and urges the Democrat Party to embrace that goal. Sanders also wants higher and equal pay for women in the marketplace without of course indicating how that would be accomplished. And, as a further taxing matter and governmental intrusion, Sanders would require a single-payer healthcare system, the same for all, and basic government healthcare for every individual, at of course the government’s expense which means more taxes for we the people.
And of course, those new and higher taxes would come first from much higher taxes on the so-called rich and wealthy. The income tax brackets for the wealthy once reached as high as 90% and Sanders wants a return to those levels or as close as possible.
All of this, all of this Sanders-socialism-statism political philosophy is anti-capitalism, anti-free markets, anti-business, destructive of the entrepreneur, and of economic and profitable opportunities among others. What do you believe? Where do you stand? Do you know and understand the issues, especially these large and incredibly controlling and pervasive economic issues? Do you understand the effect this even more-radical-than-Obama changes would make to the American way of life, and YOUR way of life? You should and you must. For Elections 2016 including President and Vice President, 34 United States Senators, and 435 congresspersons in the House of Representatives will determine more than any other election ever the future of our great country. What you want and how you vote will affect the future, yours and mine, more than any other election, EVER. You have to know the issues and you have to decide what is right so that you can VOTE RIGHT!
Elections 2016 have already begun. It seems unprecedented that some 20 months before the election, politicizing is at work. Hillary Rodham Clinton ramps up her campaign for the Presidential nomination daily. Bernie Sanders moves aggressively forward. Working in the background and ready for entrance into the political marketplace are Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, former governor O’Malley and perhaps others. There are no less than 16 Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination. 16! What a political season this will be. And of course, it will be a most expensive Presidential race ever.
The Cook Political Report and prognosticator Elizabeth Wilner indicate that there could be as much as $5 billion, $5 BILLION spent on the Presidential Race alone. That, not counting all of the money spent for Senate and House elections. There may be as much as six, or seven, or even $8 BILLION spent on Political Elections 2016. What a staggering sum. In some cases, that much money, that much financial power can in fact influence and even win elections. We will hear more negative advertising, more personal attacks, more confrontation than ever before in American political history. The wealthy will open wallets to support the candidates they desire more than ever. The more candidates grow in popularity, like Sanders for the Democrats and Trump for the Republicans, the more the money will flow. You and I, average American citizens will be overwhelmed, bombarded with this political advertising. We must have a discernment, my fellow Americans, now more than ever to understand TRUTH AND FACT. We can not be misled by any politician, actual or potential. Elections 2016 may be our last opportunity to define, or redefine what our great country should be and how WE THE PEOPLE wish to live, the restatement of our values, morals, rights and duties, privileges and opportunities. REDEFINING THEMthe way we want and now the way THEY THE POLITICIANS want.
Listen carefully, my fellow citizens, to men like Trump, and Walker, and Bush, and Rubio, and Cruz. Listen carefully, very carefully. And, listen just as carefully to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Governor O’Malley, Elizabeth Warren or any other voice of the Democrat Party to understand precisely what they believe, whether they are truthful when they articulate, how transparent they are and whether or not THEY THE RULERS will reflect and articulate what WE THE PEOPLE want.
Elections 2016 may be the most important vote in the future of America ever, and in fact, your vote 2016 may possibly be the last meaningful vote you will ever cast.
THINK RIGHT. UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES.