| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Is liberal socialist democracy evil or incompetent, or just plain wrong? |
| 2010-06-22 |
| Jerry Pournelle ...is liberal socialist democracy evil or incompetent, or just plain wrong? Are political opponents evil or wrongheaded? Are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, both Liberal Democrats, part of a malicious conspiracy? Their objectives are pretty clear and plain. If Liberal Democracy is a conspiracy, it hasn't done much of a job of hiding its objectives. They've been clear since the days of Beatrice and Sydney Webb. So have their tactics: there is no enemy to the left. Solidarity forever. The union makes us strong. George Bernard Shaw was aware of Stalin's starvation tactics and the Ukraine famine, but chose not to say anything about it because Solidarity was a guiding principle. So were many others, for the same reasons. Being a communist fellow traveler was quite fashionable among intellectuals. It took the Hitler Stalin Pact to break the subservience of American intellectuals to the Popular Front, and even then many stayed with the communists. Recall Fred Pohl: An intellectual friend, well known in science fiction circles of 1940, brought the news of the Fall of Paris to the Germans to Fred and other editors. He bought us wine, held up his glass, and proposed a toast: "To the liberation of the bourgeois capital by the people's forces of socialism." I drank his lousy wine. But it lay sour in my stomach while I brooded in my office all that day. Was that incompetence or malice? Was it incompetence or malice to drink the lousy wine and brood? I do believe that socialism is entirely antithetical to the Constitution of 1789 as Amended. For a very long time the Supreme Court of the United States believed that as well. Now the Court is divided on the subject. A majority of the Congress is held by a party that doesn't purport to believe in socialism, but which elects a leadership that enacts laws based on the socialist philosophy. Government ought to take care of people. Government should spread the wealth around. You are entitled to benefits not because of your virtues, and the wealthy are obligated to pay for your entitlements. It's their duty and your right. Is it malice to believe that? I would say a great many of the academics in these United States believe it, and many more do not dare dispute it because those who do believe it make it dangerous for anyone in academia to dispute the consensus. Are they all malicious? They certainly believe that those who oppose them are malicious. And of course it's not all that clear cut to begin with. Most of those who voted for Obama didn't believe that he believed all the tenets of academic Liberal Socialist Democracy. Are all those who voted for him malicious? Is it malice to be seduced into hoping that Hope and Change were real, especially given the past history of the Creeps who were in charge? Liberal Socialism is wrongheaded. I think its end results are terrible. It's also seductive. Most Liberals I know believe they have good intentions, and that so long as they have good intentions they cannot be called malicious or evil. I believe that the upcoming election is the most important election in decades, and that its effects will be felt for decades to come. What's at stake are the very principles of this nation. Surely that's clear enough? Clearly I believe that those who voted in this government were mistaken. I want those people back on our side. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #10 Is this a trick question? It's a false dichotomy (or trichotomy as there are 3 choices). Socialism is evil, incompetent and plain wrong. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2010-06-22 18:19 |
| #9 Is liberal socialist democracy evil or incompetent, or just plain wrong? Is this a trick question? |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839 2010-06-22 17:59 |
| #8 Clearly I believe that those who voted in this government were mistaken. I want those people back on our side. How to make that happen is the task before us. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-06-22 14:24 |
| #7 No one who can do so effectively is going to make this case explicitly. Jerry's not a politician, but he does a pretty good job. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-06-22 14:23 |
| #6 Is liberal socialist democracy evil or incompetent, or just plain wrong? Yes. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-06-22 13:15 |
| #5 "Note that before history was rewritten, the Nazis were socialists" NSDAP - National socialist german workers party. Businesses operated, but big ones were under central control. Labor unions were under direct control. Like fascism, lighter handed than communism, but very socialist. |
| Posted by: flash91 2010-06-22 12:52 |
| #4 What's at stake are the very principles of this nation. Surely that's clear enough? True enough, but not clear to most thanks to the last five decades of public education (socialist indoctrination). No one who can do so effectively is going to make this case explicitly. And if they did, the media (shocktroopers of socialism) would immediately do everything possible to make the person tappear to be a right wing wacko nut job. |
| Posted by: Glons Peacock4612 2010-06-22 12:46 |
| #3 Good intentions... my a$$. Road to hell is paved with good intentions and greased by banality of evil. Socialism (Liberal, which is quite illiberal, or not so Liberal) is not wrongheaded. It is evil. 100 million souls are witness to that. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2010-06-22 12:01 |
| #2 Fall of Paris to the Germans to Fred and other editors. He bought us wine, held up his glass, and proposed a toast: "To the liberation of the bourgeois capital by the people's forces of socialism." Note that before history was rewritten, the Nazis were socialists. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2010-06-22 11:46 |
| #1 Worse, it's suicide. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-06-22 11:44 |