Is the Democratic Party Caught in a Poetic Socialist Trance?

We all remember the tale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin who led the village’s spell-bound children onto a mountain where they disappeared. 

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the Socialist Pied Piper leading the Democratic Party into oblivion?

Certainly, the twenty-nine year old first term member of Congress has some sort of spell-binding powers.

How else can one explain the many Democrats lining up behind the far left wing presentation of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s which will be disastrous for America and doom its supporters?

The “Green New Deal” announced in early February by the new Congresswoman, with a backdrop of much older – but certainly not wiser – fellow Democrats is a fairy tale one would expect from the Wicked Witch of the East or some other villain dwelling in the world of make-believe:

          *Abolish oil consumption

          *Guaranteed employment (but not with compensation dependent on fossil fuel)

          *High-speed electric rail and roadways to replace oil consuming vehicles (you want to fly to Europe?  take a sail boat, instead)

          *Medicare for all – you’ll be able to pay for it with your guaranteed job.

 Who is this modern Pied Piper?  On paper, she’s tremendously ill-equipped to lead anyone anywhere.

She does hold a Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston University with majors in international relations and economics.

But since graduating in 2011, her work experience hardly prepared her for her new role.  She held a variety of jobs ranging from serving as an “educational strategist”, bartender and organizer for Bernie Sander’s presidential campaign in 2016.

So what?  She ran for Congress in 2018, is a member of Democratic Socialists of America and besides trumpeting the Green New Deal, favors free college, higher taxes on the wealthy and elimination of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency.

She’s also articulate, attractive and enthusiastic in manner.

So for her Democratic followers – and they are becoming legion – what’s not to love?

Among those in line behind Ms. Ocasio-Cortez as she heads toward oblivion are many prominent Democrats, including:

                   2020 Presidential candidates, so far, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren

                    New York Times columnist Paul Krugman

    
                   Massachusetts Senator Ed Mendez

                    Bernie Sanders, the Socialist “Independent” who challenged Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

                   There are many others following the piper but Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr. of the Hip Hop Caucus deserves special mention.  Dancing with the tune is particularly memorable.

 Those entranced by the left-wing piper as they stretch along behind her would do well to ponder what happened to those trailing the Pied Piper.  As recited in Robert Browning’s famous poem about the legend:

                       “THEY WERE NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN”.

 Alas, TSC must confess to some wishful thinking.

 

The Eternal Appeal of Socialism

From an intellectual and historical perspective, socialism is an abject failure.  Yet the economic theory seemingly has mythical, Phoenix-like qualities.  It doesn’t work so a country abandons it to seemingly universal approval.  Yet a few decades later, the concept is promoted as if it holds bountiful prospects for mankind.

Plainly socialism, as an idea, has an appeal which will lie dormant only so long as the memory of its most recent economic disaster is fresh.

Why is that?  Socialism is appealing in the sense that hope springs eternal.  Mankind is an optimistic sort.  Yesterday’s failure does not preordain future results, does it?

Pure socialism calls for the society to control all matters of production and economic activity.  Its operational credo is to place the interests of the group’s welfare over that of individual members.  Egalitarianism is the model, not individualism.  Karl Marx expressed its practical application in the prescription “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.

Sounds appealing, right?  And so it is to so many.

The problem is that socialism in practice always crashes and burns when it collides with human nature.

People are primarily motivated by what they perceive as their own interests.  Why should a person surrender what he has earned because someone else “needs” it?  And why should someone who has needs provide for himself if others will give it to him without his effort?

Yes, these are simple points which become more complicated in a functioning society which, of course, does need money to operate.  But the truths are elemental.

The less money a worker receives for his efforts, the less effort he will expend.  The more that a recipient of money receives from others, the less is his incentive to expend his own efforts to earn.

Why is this called common sense?  Because it is an accurate statement founded in human nature.

Historically, we know this to be true.  Those denying – or ignoring – this reality are “utopian” for good reasons.  Socialist experiments do indeed prove to be exactly that.

People stop working.  Welfare lines grow.  Entrepreneurs flee or hide their wealth as taxes become confiscatory.  And the economy collapses.

When free enterprise is introduced or reestablished, prosperity arrives. 

 Death and taxes, as the chestnut recites, are always with us and so is mankind’s wishful thinking. 

This naivete is abundantly clear in the pronouncements of young leftists in Congress who are historically ignorant and intellectually facile (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is exhibit #1).  And cynicism is plainly evident in the allegiance pledged to socialist ideas by Democratic presidential candidates seeking support from their party’s left wing.

President Trump insists that America will never become a socialist country.

TSC is less sanguine.  Considering the disintegration of public education and other traditional disseminators of American values (including appreciation of the free enterprise system), Conservatives may be engaging in wishful thinking of their own.

The Socialist Phoenix is rising.

Should Virginia Governor Ralph Northam Resign Because He Wore a KKK Hood While in Medical School Thirty Years Ago?

Although Northam has refused, the question lingers in the liberal media.

Actually, it’s unclear whether he wore this hood or was sharing space in a yearbook in “black face”.  But this distinction made no difference to his fellow liberal Democrats and some  Republicans calling for his ouster.
 

 Why?  His critics are making what are common assumptions by those prone to charge racism by others. – because some people are offended by symbols they perceive to be racist, those who support or don’t oppose such symbol must be racists themselves.  Think,  recently, of Meghan Kelley not being offended by “black face” costumes worn for Halloween or those opposed to the removal of Confederate war memorials.

But if one is going to accuse another of racism, the allegation should not be evaluated with reference to the “offense taken” by the accuser but rather by the truth of the charges.

TSC is indeed sensitive to the seriousness of the offense as well as the fact that many on the Left level the slur with reckless abandon against foes on the Right.  (I, too, have been a target.)

So there is a certain irony in that Gov. Ralph Northam whose 2017 campaign was not reluctant to throw about the charge of racism against his GOP opponent finds himself being hoisted on his own petard.

But the irony doesn’t justify gloating by the governor’s conservative foes or joining forces with those on the Left calling for his removal.  Conservatives have problems enough witout adding hypocrisy to the Left’s arsenal against us.

Does the fact that his conduct was offensive – then and now – prove  the nature of his motivation?  No.

What did the youthful – albeit twenty-five year old – mean by his choice of attire or face paint?  Was it a prank?  Humorous (to be sure, in bad taste)? A stunt meant to reflect his contempt? 

Anyway, what exactly is racism?  It certainly is not – as many careless or malicious abusers of the term use it - a recognition of perceived differences.

Here’s how Webster’s College Dictionary defines the term:

 

1.  a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races, determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior.  2.  a policy, system of government, etc., based on such a doctrine.  3.  hatred or intolerance of another race or races.

 

To label someone a racist, thus, is to label that person as a hater and intolerant of a racial group.  That certainly seems an apt description of a member of, for instance, a white supremacist cult or the Ku Klux Klan.  But merely donning an item of wear or appearance that some associate with prejudice (even if understandable) is not sufficient evidence of racial hostility.

A fair evaluation of an individual’s conduct requires a closer inspection.  Do his actions and pronouncements, current and past, provide support – or not – for the view that a yearbook picture reflected the negative perception that might be drawn?

And even if an event thirty years ago was genuinely reflective of that person’s racial animus then, should that be dispositive of his current attitude?  Have subsequent actions and expressed sentiments redeemed him?  And if not, why not?

TSC is willing to give the governor the benefit of the doubt.  Let’s listen to what he has to say.

NOTE:  An interesting reason given by some for supporting the governor’s ouster is that regardless of his motivation or subsequent conduct, a lot of prominent people support it.  So politically, there’s no alternative.

That’s appalling.  If the crowd is calling for your scalp, you must provide it?  The mere insinuation of racism supported by the crowd ruins a political life?  No defense permitted?