Voting in, shooting out
SHORTLY after Barack Obama was elected president, Don Imus interviewed presidential historian Michael Beschloss, who gushed that the president-elect surely had the highest I.Q. of any man ever elected to the office. “What is his I.Q.?” asked Don Imus. Beschloss stumbled momentarily, surprised that someone in media would dare to ask such an impertinent and maybe even…racist question. “Why…it’s… it’s so high…it literally can’t be measured. It’s off the charts. Literally,” or something like that. Anyway, he obviously wasn’t prepared for the question Imus asked. The majority of historians, who are largely academics, are of the leftist type, as are the majority in all parts of media. That’s why the only GOP president who makes it onto most “expert’s” Top-10 lists is Honest Abe.
The professional left and their friends will always, and gleefully, point out the imperfections, errors and wrongdoings in American history as if they are unique to this nation and were undertaken with the universal approbation of every American alive at the time of the atrocity under discussion. In fact, in the case of virtually all of America’s horrible, deliberate and unforgivable sins, as most leftists will aver, the entire nation was guilty then, and, no matter when the transgression was committed, America is still guilty now, and the interest on that indelible guilt is compounding daily.
This psychological mindset, combined with their bias toward self-confirmation, leads the left to the absurd conclusion that their perception of this country is “truth”: it’s a blood-soaked, mendacious, larcenous construct of hate, greed and bigotry, born of rich, privileged whites oppressing the poor and victimizing minorities. Because this exploitative relationship has characterized the entire history of the white European in North America, that is, whites murdering, exploiting, victimizing, enslaving, and charging usurious interest rates to non-whites, the result is simple: whites = bad; everybody else = good. In their minds, the scales are so unbalanced that their moral imperative is starkly clear: America must focus its entire energy on establishing financial and material equality between all people, classes, groups and races. To the left, nothing, and nobody, must be allowed to stand in the way of this goal, whose importance transcends all other considerations, principles and standards.
So, obviously, what the left now calls “socialism” appeals greatly to them: It expands government’s scale and reach dramatically, using its taxing power as a leveling force to redistribute (from “the rich”) wealth by providing services (“free” food, housing, healthcare) to a large segment (“the poor”) of the population. Conservatives, which, in this case, would include anyone who has actually read the U.S. Constitution, know that the U.S. government has no authority to either redistribute wealth in any way or provide any form of direct service or support to individuals. Expanding the definition of ‘conservatives’ further to include anyone who has either, a) Read a couple of books about modern Western history from the end of the 17th century onward, and/or, b) Lived a sentient, observant life beginning at any time in the mid-twentieth century, such people would know automatically that, a) What AOC, Bernie and their fellow travelers call “socialism” isn’t socialism at all, and b) The government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always enjoy the support of Paul. Paul, of course, has been “taught” that Peter is a greedy, rich, exploiting, larcenous, capitalist pig and Paul is a helpless victim, and that government has a basic “right” and a defining duty to make Peter and Paul “equal”. Fortunately, Karl Marx has a theory for that and a governmental and economic “system” to implement it.
This “system”, whether it’s called democratic socialism or Marxism-light, can do nothing more, ever, than temporarily assuage envy and resentment, the immature emotions that define the mental limits of a growing segment of the population. It always fails because human nature itself renders it inoperable; no government can evade the laws of supply and demand or establish “economic rights” without enslaving an entire society to itself. And, for that to actually take place, there can’t be any dissent on any level, because that would spread rapidly and the ruling class would be in jeopardy. People like free stuff, but they like free speech, too. When they realize they’ve lost free speech, and free stuff is getting scarcer and ‘iffy’-er all the time, that’s when they’ll realize what millions have already learned, either through experience or study, about socialism: You can vote your way in, but you have to shoot your way out.