If ever there were a time when our market economy deserves a little coddling and a soft pillow under its head, it is now. Battered by a financial meltdown, a plunging stock market, declining trade, and frightened consumers, now would be the time to cut corporate tax rates (which are among the highest in the world), reverse the “mark to market” rule for valuing assets, temporarily increase unemployment compensation and Medicaid (with sunset provisions), and keep taxes low. When Barack Obama agreed last autumn that it was not a good idea to raise taxes during a recession, it seemed that he was at least enough of a moderate to understand the importance of markets. One can no longer indulge that hope. Like blasts from a machine gun, Obama has announced higher taxes on the owners of small businesses (the most productive individuals), higher taxes on the energy industry (through the cap-and-trade system), green mandates on the auto industry that will increase the cost of each vehicle, a bailout of mortgagers that will increase the cost of mortgages down the road, increased unionization (which reduces jobs), a repeal of the successful welfare reform of the 1990s, and a rhetorical assault on Wall Street that leaves investors edgy.
The Democrats scoff when you use the “s” word (socialism). It’s a bogeyman, they argue. Not so. If by socialism, you refer to the sort of government-heavy economies that characterize most of Europe, then we are clearly headed there about as fast as Flight 1549 was headed for the Hudson River.
Unfortunately for us, Obama is no "Sully" Sullenberger. Instead, with his anti-capitalist policies and under the direction of Pelosi and Reid, we can be sure that we are in for a catastrophic landing scenario, along with multiple casualties.
Charen goes on:
Yes, there’s a recession on and it’s deep. Capitalism is not perfect (though one harbors the suspicion that if government had not, in effect, subsidized risky mortgage lending we would not be in this position). But with all its defects, capitalism remains the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever witnessed. Just in the last 25 years, hundreds of millions of people, principally residing in China and India, who had been close to destitution and starvation are driving cars, sipping lattes, and chatting on cell phones thanks to free-market reforms. Countries with few natural resources other than the brains of their people — like Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan — have become economic powerhouses by permitting the free market to work its magic.
It shouldn't come as any surprise that the thing most feared by today's neo-Marxists --like Barack Obama--is capitalism. Thus it must be demonized and all the blame for today's economic mess is placed at its door.
These neo-Marxists are right to fear it, because capitalism actually works in the real world; while communism, socialism and all the utopian variants thereof do not. When idiots like Pelosi and Reid, Dodd and Frank self-righteously try to manipulate the market to "help the poor and disadvantaged", they cause the exact opposite to happen. Who is impacted most by their policies: those who might otherwise eventually benefit from the actions of a free market--as documented over the last 100 years.
Capitalism creates wealth and slowly but surely cures poverty; while their own ideology, instead of 'redistributing' wealth, redistributes poverty. Capitalism embraces freedom and cannot function optimally without it; while their ideology must have increasing control over even the smallest things in people's lives.
Capitalism is good for the soul, while their ideology destroys the soul.
In every empirical test in the real world, capitalism has worked better than socialism or communism or any Marxist ideology. The last century once and for all completely debunked all the original Marxist claims about socialism's supposed superiority.
--Instead of exploiting people, capitalism has empowered them, while Marx's theories made them poor, miserable, and oppressed.
--Instead of increasing poverty, capitalism has mostly eliminated it. The rich get richer indeed; but the poor get richer, too. Under socialism’s yoke, everyone becomes poorer--except, of course, the corrupt (see Cuba, Venezuela, etc. etc.).
--Instead of being more humane and peaceful, socialists and communists who gain control of a country have led that country to dictatorship and oppression; and then became aggressive and violent toward other countries as they attempt to externalize blame for their own economic and political failures.
The confrontation between capitalism and socialism in the last century was only the most recent in a long series of historical battles between the forces of freedom and individualism on the one hand; and the forces of tyranny and collectivism on the other.
We used to have two political parties in this country that both supported freedom and individualism, but one of them now openly mocks anyone who suggests that socialism is a bad thing.
The only problem with that is socialism is a bad thing. Even in the supposedly "benign" social democracies (e.g. in Europe), socialist and Marxist ideas are hardly benign at all; they erode the soul and spirit; stoke class envy and encourage entitlement and decrease the production of wealth for all. In fact, anytime socialist principles are adopted and implemented in a otherwise thriving economy, it inevitably leads to decay and poverty for all. Oh, the process of losing your freedom and getting poorer is a little more pleasant and comforting simply because instead of the horribly oppressive "daddy" state, controlled by the Lenins, Stalins and their modern-day equivalents in Cuba, Venezuela and elsewhere; you get the "nanny" states that want to coddle, mother and otherwise suffocate you until all individual liberty and initiative are gone.
The social engineers of the left, motivated as they are by their creative utopian aspirations--expressed by the desire to impose (forcibly, if necessary) universal peace, social justice and brotherhood upon humanity--are completely oblivious to the malignant side of their own natures. Both they and the capitalist entrepreneurs of the right who they despise so vehemently are both driven by the darker human emotions: envy, greed and a need to dominate others.
However, there remains an extremely crucial difference between them:
The do-gooder leftist in all the various ideological incarnations--the antiwar crowd, the environmental crowd, the communists, socialists, and assorted collectivists--offers the rationale that he does what he does for the "common good" and for "social justice", "peace" and "brotherhood". His high-minded, self-righteous rhetoric justifies (to him anyway) imposing his will and beliefs on others for their own good; and he will not hesitate to use whatever coercive capablity he has at hand to get others to do what he wants and what he says.
The capitalist, on the other hand, is overtly out to pursue his own selfish profit, and understands he must use persuasion. That is, he must convince people that his ideas and the products of his mind are better than all the rest so that they will be willing to part with their hard-earned money to possess them. His desire for power over others is manifested in an indirect manner because people must want what he has to offer and believe that they will benefit from an interaction with him.
There is no parallel social limitations on the behavior of the leftist. This tyrant wannabe does not feel the need to convince others of the veracity or even the effectiveness of his ideas; nor does he accept defeat when others are not interested or resist their implementation. He knows in his heart what is best for everyone, and he will use coercion if necessary. He will not allow options; nor will he permit others do do what they think is right for themselves. Their feelings or concerns are a matter of complete indifference to him. Only his own matter.
The leftist's desire for power is direct and absolute; and this is a direct consequence of his utopian ideology.
And there is no area of your life which will escape his intrusive psychopathology, because he justifies it by saying he is really doing it for your sake.
In standing up for capitalism, you are standing up for your own individual freedom; and that means the freedom to fail, as well as the freedom to succeed. Without both, there is no real freedom.
So, just say no to being bailed out; thank the nannies for their concern, but say, give me liberty, not a bailout!
Post a Comment