Amusement doesn’t even begin to describe the
gut reaction to Galen Yordy’s letter, “Conflating ideologies not a good look
for GOP” of May 10, 2019. It was more
like, “you gotta be kidding me” or “you cannot be serious” or as my old high
school coach used to say, “how dumb are you son?”
Democrats are carefully following the path
National Socialists in Germany (i.e. Nazis) followed leading up to WWII. First they disguised their socialist views by
prefacing it with a benign word. The
Nazi form of socialism was called “National” Socialism. The Democrats have taken to calling their
form of socialism “Democratic” Socialism.
No matter what or how many happy modifiers you
place before it, socialism is socialism and socialism is communism’s little
brother or as people who know put it, socialism is communism without a gun to
your head – but they will get the gun and put it there eventually.
National Socialist of the 40s and Democratic
Socialism of today had and have the exact same goals – to nationalize key means
of production. Democrats have announced
through the Green New Deal that it is their intention to seize control of healthcare,
energy production, transportation, education, farming and food production to
name a few.
The resemblance doesn’t stop there. Today’s Democrat Party, like the Nazis, is beginning
to show a virulent anti-Jewish face that the Democrat leadership either does
not want to or cannot control.
But it doesn’t stop there. Today’s Democrat
Party is like the Nazis in that they embrace eugenics in that they openly
support the murder of “unwanted” (there’s no such thing) babies born alive.
We know how the story ends. The truth is that there is not one example in
history that “Democratic” Socialists can point to where their proposed economic
system has worked. History is littered
with examples where it has failed.
Conflating ideologies
not good look for GOP
I read with amusement
the April 27 article “Socialism threat focus of Lincoln Day dinner.”
Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney warned attendees that socialism “is
just as big a threat” from some Democratic presidential aspirants as it was
from the former Soviet Union during the 1980s. She also declared, “We are
very proudly the party of (Abraham) Lincoln ... and of Donald Trump.” Such
statements appear to reflect a rather notable ignorance of matters economic,
political and historical.
Conflating the economic
and the political seems to be the norm for virtually everyone in this
country. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “economics” generally
refers to, “a social science concerned chiefly with description and
analysis of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and
services.” On the other hand, “politics” generally refers to “activities that
relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and
keeping power in a government.” We have historically relied upon two fundamental
political approaches: authoritarianism and democracy.
One may mix and match
economic and political approaches any way one wishes, but they are not the same
thing. Whereas we, in this country, associate communistic and socialistic
economic approaches with maximally brutal dictators, it does not follow
that these approaches are inherently authoritarian any more than it does that
capitalism is inherently authoritarian because it was practiced under the
equally brutal Adolf Hitler.
A casual perusal of
Civil War history would show the Republican Party of that era was roughly
the ideological equivalent of the Democratic Party of today.
Republicans of that time, including Lincoln himself, would likely look
with dismay, disgust and shame upon the present state of the Republican Party,
particularly its warm embrace of its leader, surely the most loathsome,
vile, and shameful figure in contemporary American politics.
For Cheney to imply a
favorable comparison between Lincoln and Trump is beyond disgraceful.
Galen A. Yordy
No comments:
Post a Comment