Where They Really Stand
By Thomas D. Segel (07/30/04)
“In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all…security, comfort, and freedom. When the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then (they) ceased to be free.”
These words could be spoken about the United States today. They were not. They were actually spoken by Sir Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) when speaking about the fall of Athens.
Today we see a modern version of the Athenians is the attitudes of many American citizens. They would sell their own constitutional rights for governmental promises of security, freedom from responsibility, plus a life of equality and comfort.
To a degree, this attitude is understandable. They have heard the promises of these lifetime benefits spewing from the mouths of politicians for the past seventy or more years. Starting with the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, through the utopian promises of LBJ and the government controlled medical plan proposed by Hillary Clinton, there has been a strong contingent of political promise makers who would offer Americans almost anything they desired. All we needed to do was surrender our liberty.
If we are to be objective about the dangers facing freedom, it must be admitted these threats can come from either the extreme left or right of the political spectrum. At this time in our history, there are warning calls for citizens to be very observant of what powers are given our government under the threat of this global war against terrorism. Already we have seen personal liberties restricted for the sake of national security.
The cause of greatest concern is not actions taken as national defensive measures, but those legislative moves, which eat at the very heart of the Constitution. These are laws that are designed to reconfigure America into a socialist nation.
It matters not that Socialism and Communism have failed time and time again across the face of our globe. Those who carry this banner know the “right people” have just not administered it in the “right way”. They, of course, know the right way to administer everything and they know they are the right people to lead a socialist country.
Another thing known by the far left is that Americans understand the history of the socialist/communist movement. We just don’t like to hear those words offered up in the course of public debate. So, they are changed to “progressive”, “liberal”, “caring”, and “humanitarian”, or “environmentally friendly”.
It makes no difference what names or words are used to present proposals or seek legislation. What does matter is… our people must learn that the Democratic Party is a tool of the extreme left and is being used to tear the Constitution into shreds.
When charges of socialistic infiltration are leveled, the response is always made that these are only fear tactics being waged by right wing extremists. It matters not the issue…be it an attempt to disarm the citizenry with new restrictive gun laws…or medical care for the poor. If anyone poses a question about the impact of such legislation, the label of “right wing” always floats to the surface. If that charge doesn’t carry enough weight with the public, the left will then claim opponents are “racist”, “homophobic”, “anti-poor”, anti-women”, or “anti-environmentalists”
Since opposition voices are always denigrated when they attempt to expose socialist actions, it is best to explain what Socialists really want by using their own words. The text of “Where We Stand – The Political Perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America” should bring enlightenment to all that will take the time to read this clarifying document.
Concerning political strategy the Democratic Socialists of America say, “Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this control of government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program of regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs…”
The document speaks of economic democracy in these words: “Economic democracy can empower wage and income earners through building cooperative and public institutions that own and control local economic resources. Economic democracy means, in the most general terms, the direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners. Such a transformation of worklife directly embodies and presages the practices and principles of a socialist society.”
The “Where We Stand” document also addresses social redistribution saying, “Social redistribution – the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society – will require:
1. Massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, and…
2. A massive shift in public resources from the military (the main user of discretionary funds) to civilian uses.
These are words written by American socialists, which explain the direction of each and every item of legislation they author in the Halls of Congress. Those who think socialists are not serving as elected representatives should take a close look at the Progressive Caucus. It is made up of sixty House members who also share their allegiance with the Democratic Socialists of America.
These elected members of the Democratic Party all seek “to build international political and social cooperation aimed at ensuring the economic institutions benefit all the people by eliminating private ownership.” They are dedicated to “building international social movements of unionists, environmentalists, feminists, and people of color that together can elevate global justice over brutalizing global competition.”
These few excerpts should give people a good idea of the direction being taken by the Democratic Socialists of America. They have already made vast inroads into government and are relentless in their pursuit of stated objectives.
We face great danger because of our public apathy and lack of interest in the governance of our nation. It would serve us all well to recall the words of John Adams, in 1772, when he said..."There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man with power to endanger the public liberty.”
(Printer friendly version) Email: Thomas D. Segel
