Politics of Greed

Following the intellectual, spiritual, and literal bankruptcy of the Soviet bloc of Marxist states in the 1980's, it seems that mankind would have learned his lesson. The reality of the results of those arrogant experiments in economic and social engineering should have quashed for all eternity the fantasy of a government solution to every problem. But it did not. Especially in this election year, the socialist panderers are stumbling over one another to offer magnanimous bribes to the electorate in order to secure its favor.

The socialist panderers in the Clinton and Obama campaigns tell the people that government can and should supply them with all of their needs, and can pay for it by taxing the wealthy "their fair share".

But what is a person's "fair share"? If two people bring their lunches to school and see a classmate with nothing to eat, fairness (between the two who brought lunches) would be found if each were to give the hungry student the same amount. Fairness in taxes would dictate that we each pay the same amount, but that is not what is suggested.

No, by the definition of "fair" used in the Democratic primary race, fairness means that those who have more should be required to give more, not of their own free will, but by force of ballot. What they really mean is that they don't think it's fair that some people have more than others in the first place.

It is a two-edged sword, this socialist pandering. On the one side it punishes success and discourages those who have worked hard from continuing to do so. On the back cut it slices away any desire for the poor to lift themselves out of their own troubles by their own efforts.

And no one challenges the socialists on their misdeeds.

When the Democrats mention the current tightening of mortgage credit, it isn't to say that people should not take on expenses they can't afford. It's to promise more government help, more interference in the market, even though it was precisely this interference which led to the problem. Home ownership is a political winner, so pandering politicians force banks not to deny too many loans.

Who stands up to the prattling of this Tyrant, turning aside his demands for instant gratification in favor of a more lasting Pursuit of Happiness? No one. Meanwhile, the Democrats play the envy of the Have Nots against the guilt of the Haves, creating a climate in which self reliance borders on hate speech.

For greed is not just the province of those already wealthy wanting more than their "fair" share; it's also the dwelling place of those who have little but want others to supply them with what they will not supply for themselves.

In this Illinipundit thread, the question is asked "Who is advancing Conservatism?" I responded there with:

Who is advancing Conservatism? That's the wrong question. I understand the shorthand of assigning a label to a set of ideas and all, but in the end it is the ideas themselves, and not the movement comprising them, that is important.

And 'Conservatism' is a misnomer, if so widely accepted a word can be a misnomer. Conservatism is the practice of holding on to the good aspects of a policy or situation, even if it means accepting the bad aspects; it stands in contrast to Liberalism, which is rejecting the bad aspects of a policy or situation even if it means letting go of the good ones.

The set of ideas we currently think of as 'Conservative' (and yes, I do it too) are really Libertarianism with a high value placed on the right to Life and abstention from sex and certain drugs. Conservatives are also more likely than Liberals to internalize the law into morality, which is another aspect of liking stability.

The real question is: Who is taking a stand and insisting that the mindset of Western Civilization is what we use to govern and will be the one we teach the next generation?

Sphere: Related Content