Hillary Clinton’s Socialist Platform

At risk of being labeled some sort of a neo-McCarthyite I wanted to point out this, because it is downright scary. Calling this woman a socialist isn’t hyperbole, it’s fact. Pure and simple.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) – Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like…Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

The problem with people like Hillary Clinton and Karl Marx, who envision for the world a utopia where a central authority takes wealth from the many and redistributes it according to the whims and principles of a few (well intentioned or not), is that it requires us all to put all of our faith and wealth into the government. Which is a bad thing because the more power government gets the more corrupt and oppressive it tends to become. Socialism has an awful history when it comes to well-meaning revolutionaries setting up a centrally-controlled government and economy only to find themselves oppressed by the people they appointed or elected to run it. Even here in America, the birthplace of democracy, we find time and again politicians with too much power abusing that power either to enrich themselves and their friends or punish their enemies.
Giving government more power than is absolutely necessary is folly. It is the road to tyranny and oppression at the hands of greedy government bureaucrats and it must be avoided at any cost.
Yet here’s Hillary telling us that we should abandon individuality, abandon self-reliance, and become more dependent on the government. She’s calling this “shared prosperity,” which means that she’s going to take some of your prosperity and force you to share it with your neighbor, who maybe isn’t even working to create his/her own prosperity.
I wish Hillary and the rest of her big-government liberal colleagues would re-read the Declaration of Independence and note that the founders’ intent in establishing this country was to grant our citizens a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” No one is guaranteed happiness, but simply the freedom to pursue it. But that’s not what Hillary wants. She wants to try and guarantee everyone in the country happiness, and she’s will to go bankrupt spending your tax dollars to do it.
I also have to take issue with Hillary’s declaration that there be no “special treatment” for any American citizen. I wonder if this means that she’s abandoning her past support of affirmative action policies, which give special treatment to certain students or employees based on their skin color, gender, etc. An enterprising reporter would think to ask Hillary if her “no special treatment” stance includes opposition to things like affirmative action and hate crimes, which make crimes against certain demographics more serious than crimes against others.
Because I don’t think that’s what she means. She still wants special treatment for the victim groups she and her fellow liberals like to pander to.

Related posts