October 19th, 2006 6:53 am
Looks like the Democrats are tired of hiding behind the “progressive” misnomer and finally admitting that they’re really Socialists at heart. With talk of tax cuts being for the rich and voter ID measures being against the poor, they’ve consistently played the class warfare game for years. The reason behind it is finally coming to light. They’re Socialists, plain and simple.
Remember back in 2004 when Hillary Clinton said:
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
She was referring to the Bush tax cuts, where Americans’ hard-earned money had been returned to those who earned it, from a government that had confiscated too much of it to begin with. You see in Hillary’s comment an admission that the money really doesn’t belong to the producers who earned it, but rather to the government. She admits that Democrats will cut short the Bush tax cuts so that “we” (the government) can take “things” (your hard-earned wages) away from “you” (the producers in society) on behalf of the “common good” (distribute to those who don’t produce).
Socialism is defined as:
Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Now the whole party is finally coming clean about their true plan for America becoming a land of Socialism.
From the AP:
Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America _ then repeated the phrase 29 times.
The term is “common good,” and it’s catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election.
And Bill Clinton came clean last night:
During remarks that were framed as a discussion of the common good, Clinton decried personal attacks against candidates for perceived lack of faith.
Democrats are admitting to being Socialists across the board. The title of a post on Democrats.com is “Progressives seek to secure the common good.”
In fact, leading left-wing scholars are touting the admission of Socialism:
The American Prospect’s May 2006 cover article, “Party in Search of a Notion,” by Michael Tomasky, has sparked a discussion among progressives about where the Democratic Party should be headed and what should be its underlying philosophy. Tomasky argued that, in response to the radical individualism of the Bush era, the party should stand in defense of the common good.
Left-wing bloggers love the idea:
The “Common Good?” Great!
In the new issue of the American Prospect, editor Michael Tomasky has written a tour de force that tpmcafaholics will enjoy drinking up and discussing. In a nutshell, Michael argues that liberals and Democrats need to return to the idea of “the common good” as our central animating principle.
It’s not a coincidence that during all of the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American protests that have occured over the past few years, many of the participants are members of Socialist Workers organizations.
A hero of the Left, Noam Chomsky, wrote a book called “The Common Good“, in which he advocates the ideals of socialism and denounces free market capitalism and individual liberties.
You remember who Chomsky is, right? The darling of Communist Hugo Chavez.
And speaking of Communists, here’s the rest of the dictionary definition of Socialism:
A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Remember this the next time you hear Democrats on the campaign trail telling Americans that when they’re in power, the government will take things away from you for the common good.
UPDATE:
Several readers have emailed me to remind me about DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s claim that, “A victory for Bernie Sanders is a win for Democrats.” Sanders is, of course, a self-described socialist.
UPDATE 2:
My liberal friends have been telling me my mention of communism in this post is ridiculous. Looks like it’s not as far off as they had hoped.
There’s a new book on Ronald Reagan making the rounds, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Its author, Paul Kengor, unearthed a sensational document from the Soviet archives. That document is a memo regarding an offer made by Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts via former Senator John Tunney, both Democrats, to the General Secretary of the Communist Party, USSR, Yuri Andropov, in 1983. The offer was to help the Soviet leadership, military and civilian, conduct a PR campaign in the United States as President Ronald Reagan sought re-election. The goal of the PR campaign would be to cast President Reagan as a warmonger, the Soviets as willing to peacefully co-exist, and thereby turn the electorate away from Reagan. It was a plan to enlist Soviet help, and use the American press, in unseating an American president.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes
In Washington, we have several examples of the Hillary Clinton “on the behalf of the common good” theme.
In the a race for Supreme Court justice, the incumbent was quoted yesterday (from the Seattle Times):
Her radio ads claims that she upholds our Constitution.
In an Voter Initiative where we are asked to repeal the death tax, one of the reasons given to retain the tax is:
I’d like to point out that confiscatory taxes are NOT “giving back”. The estate tax is money taken, using the force of government. Donations to all sorts of causes; church, girl scouts, food banks, Katrina victims, earthquake victims, etc. is giving. Who’s to say that the people being forced to pay the death tax haven’t already “given back”?
Comment by SouthernRoots — 10:49 am
[…] Jason at TexasRainmaker explains with links exactly what Democrats mean when they start talking about the “common good.” Essentially, he writes, it equates to Socialists advocating Socialism. This quote, in particular, stands out as a prime example of such: Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters — some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend — to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. […]
Pingback by Sister Toldjah » Is socialism a part of the “common good”? — 11:07 am
If I had wanted communism to flourish in the world I would have worn the uniform of the USSR. I opposed it via my servie in the U.S Army and will continue to oppose it at the ballot box. If communism is so damned appealing to these progressives, I’m sure we could raise money via free giving to transport them to the communist country of their choice. Don’t attempt to force me to participate in your ill informed attempts to bring communism to this country.
Comment by Old Soldier — 11:55 am
18 days to the election
Comment by John Ryan — 12:05 pm
Your own definition says that socialists want collective ownership. Please explain where Hillary says that she or the Democrats in general want that.
You are trying to equate fighting for “the common good” with socialism, and then try to equate that with communism. Farfetched on both counts. And I’ld like to see Bush say he’s not working for the common good.
Comment by endorendil — 12:42 pm
[…] Touching on Bob Casey’s use of “common good” 29 times in a speech to the Catholic University of America, Texas Rainmaker wonders what common good really means. […]
Pingback by SantorumBlog » The Common Good — 12:44 pm
“Your own definition says that socialists want collective ownership. Please explain where Hillary says that she or the Democrats in general want that.”
Not my definition. Both definitions I offered were that of Merriam-Webster. As far as explaining where Hillary and Democrats advocate collective ownership, re-read the post… and specifically Hillary’s comments in June 2004.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 12:59 pm
OS, “Love it or leave it”???
TR, I reread the post, but the Clintons don’t talk about collective ownership. In the quote you mention specifically, she is talking about repealing some of the tax cuts, or letting them expire. That has nothing to do with collective ownership.
Comment by endorendil — 1:45 pm
“TR, I reread the post, but the Clintons don’t talk about collective ownership. In the quote you mention specifically, she is talking about repealing some of the tax cuts, or letting them expire. That has nothing to do with collective ownership.”
Yes it does. Collective ownership of the income from producers. She wants us to give up more to the government so the non-producers can have more. From each according to his ability (progressive income tax rate), to each according to his need (entitlement and social welfare distributions).
Not to mention her ideas on socialized healthcare.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 2:07 pm
Socialist cat finally out of Liberal bag
We’ve known for a long time that Democrats are socialists, but now they’re admitting it themselves.
There’s a great post over at Texas Rainmaker today about Liberals finally admitting their penchant for socialism. Go check it out, comrade.
Trackback by reverse_vampyr — 2:11 pm
John, if the public chooses to to support any one idea, then thats what the direction that the US, as a democratic republic, will move towards. Democracy is the central American value, not unbridled capitalism.
The fact that you served in the military does not, in any way, mean that your opinion is more valuable than another voter’s or that you are automatically entitled to live under your preferred style of government.
As Jason has stated quite often on issues related to the government (ie. Supreme Court appointees), elections have consequences.
Additionally, the logic in this post is laughable. “Promoting the common good” does not equal socialism. Jason, do you really believe that supporting federal taxation is the direct equivalent to “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
For the record, I do not espouse a fully socialist system. I do support some policies that have labelled somewhat socialist in nature. However, I also support some private property rights. Democrats are not attempting to move towards a completely socialist system any more than Republicans want a completely anarcho-capitalist society. Both parties are moderate in their respective positions on the economic spectrum. Arguing that either party is on the extreme fringe of its respective position on the economic spectrum is dishonest.
Debating the issues dishonestly will only lead to further ideological strife. It won’t solve anything.
Comment by Forrest — 2:23 pm
Feeling a bit presumptuous this evening, Forrest? It is quite comical that you would presume to lecture me on the system that I have defended with my actions. And, likewise, because you have not served your country in uniform does not mean that you are any more informed on matters of civics than someone who has. The difference is the degree of commitment to purpose, I guess.
The phrase “promoting the common good” in and of itself is not socialistic; however when the phrase is promoted by progressive liberals it certainly carries socialistic connotations. Programs that redistribute my income to those who have not produced to my level is based in socialism pure and simple. (e.g. Earned Income Credit.) Where is the liberal compassion that would teach/train these underperformers to achieve at higher levels? There is no incentive to perform when additional unearned income is handed to people. Publicly promoting such programs only fosters the attitude and perception that underperformers are “entitled” to the income generated by those who do perform. (They owe us!) That leads to class divisiveness which the Democrats thrive upon.
No, Forrest, you have a long way to go to understand the ramifications of the entitlement-minded generating programs and the fact that there are consequences for personal actions as well. Avoiding personal responsibility will not make the consequences go away. Requiring me to involuntarily soften the consequence for someone who will not acknowledge their personal responsibility is asinine. I am as generous as anyone when it comes to helping those less fortunate, but it is by my choice that I chose to give. I resent you or anyone else demanding that I give to sloppily managed and overseen government programs that waste twice to thrice as much as they put in the hands of the needy.
Try thinking things all the way through rather than throw my money at the problem so you can feel better.
Comment by Old Soldier — 3:30 pm
“Try thinking things all the way through rather than throwing my money at the problem so you can feel better.”
Bravo, Old Soldier. Exactly!
If the Democrats would come up with a plan to train the poor to better themselves, then I would say they aren’t socialists. But with no plans but to take our money away from us to give to the poor simply because they are poor, speaks volumes. That is a socialist plan, pure and simple.
I hate to bring up this old worn-out adage again, but we Republicans believe in teaching a man how to fish so that he can take care of himself and not be dependent on the government; Democrats need the public to be dependent so as to keep them under their thumb, so instead of teaching them, they make them dependent by throwing the proverbial fish at them. That’s socialism in my book!
On topic but on a personal note: My washing machine broke down a couple of weeks ago, so I was forced to go to the local Laundromat. There at the laundromat sat four women selling their food stamps! You’ve got to know that makes me crazy! Why were they selling their food stamps do you suppose? So they could buy something far more important than food? Like what? Why… drugs of course! Drugs! With money you and I worked very hard for. This goes on all over this country.
It’s an excellent post Jason. Thanks. Socialism = Democrats. No one can ever convince me otherwise.
Comment by Gayle — 7:40 pm
Now why would anyone think that Her Highness is a socialist? Oh, yeah…maybe this stuff:
Hillary’s activist work at Yale, monitoring the civil rights of the Black Panthers, won her a summer internship at the Berkeley office of attorney Robert Treuhaft in 1972. A hardline Stalinist, Treuhaft had quit the Communist Party in 1958 only because it was losing members and no longer provided a good platform for his activism. (Barbara Olson,
1999, pp. 56-57)
“Treuhaft is a man who dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB,” notes historian Stephen Schwartz. (David Brock, 1996, p33)
In the March 5, 1992 issue of the New York Review of Books, Gary Wills examined Mrs. Clinton’s writings on child rights; he notes that Mrs. Clinton “returns to a classical concept of all social activity as political” - and thus within the sphere of state authority. Wills explains further: “In the past, the child’s rights were asserted
vicariously through the parent. Ms. Clinton sees those rights as, at times, to be asserted against the parent…. [T]his has always been recognized in abuse cases. But she would extend it much farther.”
Regarding HRC’s Health-Care Reform Plan: When she was traveling across the country promoting her health plan, a woman complained that she did not want to get pigeon-holed into a plan that was not of her choosing. HRC’s response: “It’s time to put the common good, the national
interest, ahead of individuals.”
Nope…she’s no socialist. She’s a “centrist”, I’m sure.
Comment by Jonathan — 8:37 pm
I’m not going to wade fully into the fray here, but I will say that I’m skeptical of either party establishing fiscal sanity in the coming years. I personally think Republicans are the most to blame in recent times, since they have controlled both houses and the White House, but of course they are only guilty of perfecting a “buy votes with handouts” method that Democrats built during their reign.
Forget the talk of what constitues socialism. The most pressing things facing our economy are:
a) Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil
b) Our growing debt to China
Both of these things hobble our ability to navigate a changing, potentially perilous world. And they seem to me more important than how we divide up our wealth at home. (Because let’s not forget, we are the richest country in history,)
Comment by Nate — 11:45 pm
TR, that’s preposterous.
Comment by endorendil — 3:11 am
Reminds me of Hillary’s hubby’s famous “What if you spend YOUR money WRONG?“
Comment by Sissy Willis — 10:23 am
Thanks, Sis…I forgot about that one!
Comment by Jonathan — 5:17 pm
“You are trying to equate fighting for “the common good” with socialism, and then try to equate that with communism. Farfetched on both counts.”
Looks like it’s not so farfetched afterall.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:05 pm
TR, that is entirely irrelevant. Just because Reagan made illegal deals with Iran’s mullah’s doesn’t mean that Republicans are fundamental muslims either, only that they didn’t mind supporting Iran in exchange for political favours and off-record money to send to the Nicaraguan death squads.
Comment by endorendil — 12:58 am
Sorry, Endo, but your party shares enough in common with socialists (and this Kennedrunk letter enhances the already accurate perception). You can’t hide from your Marxist leanings.
Comment by Jonathan — 8:32 am
Jonathan, you may wish to bone up on your knowledge of politics. Marxism isn’t socialism. Bush’s best (only) buddy on the world stage is Tony Blair, a modern socialist.
There aren’t many real marxists left. Christopher Hitchins used to be one. Keep that in mind next time he waxes lyrical about the Bush administration.
I guess “liberal” is no longer working as an epithet, is it? Is that what this new Red Scare is all about?
Comment by endorendil — 11:52 am
[…] It’s just a new revenue stream for those who want to take your hard-earned money (but not theirs) to fund their pet projects… aka “the common good“. No Comments » […]
Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Global Warming… Just Another Excuse to Raise Your Taxes — 9:01 am
[…] “For the common good“, right Bill? No Comments » […]
Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Bill Clinton: Recession is a Good Thing — 9:15 am