Why We Need a Senate Resolution Denouncing Socialism
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines’ new resolution – S. Res. 289, “expressing the sense of the Senate that socialism poses a significant threat to freedom, liberty, and economic prosperity” – takes three pages of text to say what can essentially be said in four words: “Stop socialism. Choose freedom.”
Don’t get me wrong – Daines (pictured) is to be commended for pushing his resolution. It has gotten so bad recently that it seems necessary to put the United States Senate on record declaring that “Marxism and socialism are failed ideologies” that “pose a significant threat to the freedom, liberty, and economic prosperity of all countries and peoples around the world”; and that, because such a belief system “inevitably ends in misery and suffering … the United States should never be a socialist country.”
It would be helpful, certainly, to have each of our 100 senators cast a vote on Daines’ measure, to declare publicly whether they agree with that sentiment. Let each of us see who believes socialism is a threat to liberty, and who does not. While we’re at it, I’d love to see the House vote on the same measure, too, so the American electorate can have more information at hand next year when making their choices in the voting booth.
And just why, exactly, does Daines feel a need to have the Senate affirm what every well-read American already knows? Because, apparently, there are a lot fewer well-read Americans than we once thought, and the mainstream news media would like us to believe they’re banding together to demand silly (and expensive, and freedom-robbing) things like the Green New Deal, “Medicare for All,” cancellation of student loan debt, free college for all, decriminalization of illegal border-crossing, and various and sundry other items from a laundry list of left-wing policy proposals – in other words, the 2020 Democrat agenda.
Reading the text of the Daines resolution, I find myself subconsciously nodding along. Yes, of course, history has demonstrated time and again that Marxism and socialism have failed everywhere they’ve been implemented; yes, of course, socialism poses a significant threat to freedom, liberty, and economic prosperity; yes, of course, socialism inevitably leads to misery and suffering; yes, of course, the United States should never be a socialist country.
That anyone would, or could, oppose such common-sense thinking in 2019 is remarkable. Didn’t the world spend the bulk of the 20 th century learning, at the cost of tens of millions of lives, that Marxism and socialism don’t work? Didn’t we see the examples of the Soviet Union, and Cambodia, and Cuba, and Nicaragua, and a dozen other Third World nations?
Years ago, Bill Bennett explained what he called the “open gates” test. What would happen, he asked, if you lifted all border controls, all over the world, and let every person on the planet move to wherever he or she wanted to live? What countries would people leave, and what countries would they go to? The answer was obvious – by and large, they’d leave the socialist countries and head to capitalist Western Europe and the United States.
The truth of the Bennett “open gates” test is so obvious that if I did not know better, I would think the Daines resolution is irrelevant and unnecessary. Yet, according to the polling industry’s best practitioners, too many of our fellow citizens out there – tens of millions, in fact – seem to have been seduced by the siren call of socialism.
In a new Fox News poll , for instance, more than half the Democrat primary voters surveyed – 54%, to be exact – say that the U.S. moving away from capitalism and more toward socialism would be a “good thing,” while just 33% of Democrat primary voters say it would be a “bad thing.”
A May Gallup poll showed that 43% of Americans believe “some form of socialism would be a good thing for the country as a whole.” And an August 2018 Gallup survey revealed that Democratic survey-responders had a more positive view of socialism than they did of capitalism.
Let’s call this what it is – a knowledge problem. Far too many of our fellow citizens simply do not have the proper knowledge of world events to know what history has demonstrated conclusively: that socialism is a failed system leading to the loss of liberty and the imposition of misery. Given that multiple generations of our citizenry have now been taught by leftist instructors and influenced by left-wing media and culture, this shouldn’t be surprising.
Fixing a problem first requires acknowledging that the problem exists. Before we can go about fixing this particular knowledge problem, we need to know who among our leaders are problems themselves. In the Senate, that requires a vote on the Daines resolution.
Jenny Beth Martin is chairman of the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund.
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
“And just why, exactly, does Daines feel a need to have the Senate affirm what every well-read American already knows? Because, apparently, there are a lot fewer well-read Americans than we once thought, and the mainstream news media would like us to believe they’re banding together to demand silly (and expensive, and freedom-robbing) things like the Green New Deal, “Medicare for All,” cancellation of student loan debt, free college for all, decriminalization of illegal border-crossing, and various and sundry other items from a laundry list of left-wing policy proposals – in other words, the 2020 Democrat agenda.
Reading the text of the Daines resolution, I find myself subconsciously nodding along. Yes, of course, history has demonstrated time and again that Marxism and socialism have failed everywhere they’ve been implemented; yes, of course, socialism poses a significant threat to freedom, liberty, and economic prosperity; yes, of course, socialism inevitably leads to misery and suffering; yes, of course, the United States should never be a socialist country.”
So what exactly are you saying by seeding another conservative news piece and then cut and pasting a paragraph out of it? Did you think we wouldn't be able to read it within the body of the article? And are these constant seeds from conservative sites your attempt to "expose" everyone here on NT to your conservative ideology? Just curious, as it seems you do this every day, just 'plop' another stinker on us, cut and paste a paragraph as the first comment and walk away.
You think that Real Clear Politics is some sort of hard conservative source when they most often pair competing articles together on a given topic from a 3rd source. The two articles I seeded were direct from RCP. Does it really irk you that I seed two articles a day through a conservative group that lean to the right. Do you ask progressive seeders the same questions?
What is socialism HA?
This resolution is simply deeming a vague meme to be a threat.
The Senator should specifically outline criteria for the threat, not simply deem anything that is labeled to be ' socialism ' a threat. What he has proposed is ill-conceived to the point of being meaningless.
“Let’s call this what it is – a knowledge problem. Far too many of our fellow citizens simply do not have the proper knowledge of world events to know what history has demonstrated conclusively: that socialism is a failed system leading to the loss of liberty and the imposition of misery. Given that multiple generations of our citizenry have now been taught by leftist instructors and influenced by left-wing media and culture, this shouldn’t be surprising.
Fixing a problem first requires acknowledging that the problem exists. Before we can go about fixing this particular knowledge problem, we need to know who among our leaders are problems themselves.” https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/
You did not answer my question nor did you respond to the content of my post.
Indeed. And that starts by defining your terms. So, again, what is 'socialism' as you use the term?
“Let’s call this what it is – a knowledge problem"
I think that's your answer right there...
Good point.
I use it as practiced in history and as defined in the dictionary and not some pie in the sky by and by utopia that it’s new age adherents would pretend could ever become reality.
Then clearly you would not consider any of the proposals of Bernie Sanders to be socialism since none of them call for having the state owning the means of production / distribution (a truly horrid idea) or to have the means of production / distribution be owned and controlled democratically by the people (the core meaning of Marx) which has never happened in any modern nation.
Your posts are thus self-contradictory. Just like the resolution of senator Daines.
I'm pretty sure he and those like him imagine everything they dislike as "socialism". If the government provides a service for citizens, it's automatically "socialism". If they are asked to pitch in a penny for anything like infrastructure or a program like SNAP that provides food for children living in household below the poverty line, it's "socialism". I've no doubt they read the definition, I just don't know if they understand all of the three syllable words therein.
I concur, and I think I have even used language nearly identical to what you wrote.
Nor is there any attempt to do so. It is as though the meme is all that matters and genuinely understanding the factors so as to actually make any changes (or even to properly resist factors) is not relevant. Does not matter if one has clue one about that which one dislikes; just give it a label and repeat slogans.
That you don’t like it is proof enough that it’s an important and effective measure. All senators need to be on the record on this vote.
A safety net, police, fire, education, post office, roads, military are not socialism. They are among things government through out history has done since before anyone ever thought up the vicious satanic inspired concept called socialism.
Do more than simply insult me HA. This resolution is vague and self-contradictory. How is that a good thing for the senate to embrace?
If the senate is going to pass a resolution on that which they consider to be a threat to this nation do you not think they should be clear about what they consider to be a threat? This resolution essentially states that a meme, centered on a single overloaded and thus self-contradictory word: 'socialism', is a threat. It is embarrassing.
You got that right. Now keep going. What, then, are the defining characteristics of socialism?
Regulation by government of companies to the extent that they have effective control over them and thus a growing percentage of the economy is creeping socialism. Excessive regulation by government is a form of government control of the means of production by fiat and thus is a form of socialism. Something Obama did a lot of and Trump is undoing, cutting 17 old regulations for each new one.
Statism HA. In the more mild form what you described is social democracy. In the more extreme form, what you described is state capitalism. Both are forms of capitalism and both are based on statism.
So you are focused on government / state control of the means of production. Basically you have the USSR model in mind.
Is that what you think the D 'socialists' are up to: expropriating the private sector by first controlling business with excessive regulations and then simply taking over the private sector?
Forget the label 'socialism' and go after that which you fear:
These are your enemies so now directly fight them. Fighting 'socialism' (vague, ill-defined, contradictory) defuses your argument. It is like attaching a prism to your flashlight. Remove the prism and keep your light focused on your actual target.
You do not consider the communist regimes of the 20th century to be thus? I'm guessing you do not. Nor would I. The question I have is, is such a thing possible? I do not believe that it is so it's really not much of a distinction. I think the closest anyone would get is the communist regimes of the 20th century, making socialism less than desirable, to my mind.
The people of the former USSR clearly did not democratically own and control the productive resources of their economy. I would characterize the people of the former USSR as oppressed serfs of a totalitarian regime. They had no power.
I am not sure. I understand technically how this could work, but my hesitation has always been on the human nature side. I just do not see sufficient evidence that human beings can cooperate at the level that would be required by socialism. Your mention of altruism is very close. The problem that I see is one of importance being inversely proportional to distance. For example, a mother will be more concerned about her son cutting his finger than the newsflash at that moment that a jet crashed in Norway killing 185 people. I think that socialism requires people to think individually but also to think collectively — to see the big picture and not just in the short term.
Here is a key difference. The USSR-like regimes all started with authoritarian rule where the leaders imposed what they considered to be 'socialism' on the people. In the former USSR, the situation with Lenin might have been the most genuine. I believe Lenin truly thought he was going to be able to somehow get a pre-industrial Russia to organize as socialist soviets and develop an industrial base that can meet the living needs of the people and then ultimately improve upon that. Indeed, a few years before he died, he realized that his original views were wrong and that he needed to establish a strong base of capitalism to develop the industrial base before it was possible to even start considering socialism (much less communism). But upon his death, Stalin took over and Stalin had very different plans. Stalin continued the socialist propaganda to mask one of the most bloody regimes to hold power in our history. What resulted from Stalin was the exact opposite of what Marx had described.
In the future, if socialism were to happen, I think it will come from the people because society has evolved to the point where it is possible (infrastructure) and the people themselves (not a leader) are ready and desirous of the system (culture). I personally do not see how socialism could possibly work if it is not driven by the people (grassroots).
“Stop socialism. Choose freedom.”
Don’t get me wrong – Daines (pictured) is to be commended for pushing his resolution. It has gotten so bad recently that it seems necessary to put the United States Senate on record declaring that “Marxism and socialism are failed ideologies” that “pose a significant threat to the freedom, liberty, and economic prosperity of all countries and peoples around the world”; and that, because such a belief system “inevitably ends in misery and suffering … the United States should never be a socialist country.”
It would be helpful, certainly, to have each of our 100 senators cast a vote on Daines’ measure, to declare publicly whether they agree with that sentiment. Let each of us see who believes socialism is a threat to liberty, and who does not. While we’re at it, I’d love to see the House vote on the same measure, too, so the American electorate can have more information at hand next year when making their choices in the voting booth.
And just why, exactly, does Daines feel a need to have the Senate affirm what every well-read American already knows? Because, apparently, there are a lot fewer well-read Americans than we once thought, and the mainstream news media would like us to believe they’re banding together to demand silly (and expensive, and freedom-robbing) things like the Green New Deal, “Medicare for All,” cancellation of student loan debt, free college for all, decriminalization of illegal border-crossing, and various and sundry other items from a laundry list of left-wing policy proposals – in other words, the 2020 Democrat agenda.
Reading the text of the Daines resolution, I find myself subconsciously nodding along. Yes, of course, history has demonstrated time and again that Marxism and socialism have failed everywhere they’ve been implemented; yes, of course, socialism poses a significant threat to freedom, liberty, and economic prosperity; yes, of course, socialism inevitably leads to misery and suffering; yes, of course, the United States should never be a socialist country. https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/6690/why-we-need-a-senate-resolution-denouncing-socialism
I’m not interested in some people imposed socialism where a majority votes itself the assets of others for the “collective” good.
Interesting grammar.
That is tyranny of the majority. That is something that can happen with pure Democracy. What you fear is a political mechanism, not an economic system.
Where do you find within our constitutional federal Republic (based on representative democracy) the means for the majority to vote itself the assets of others?
But I think the point is that keeping socialism from being a political mechanism rather than an economic system is it's greatest challenge. Don't you think? There will always be those who seek power for power's sake and their own benefit. That is why I have little faith in any form of government actually working well over time. It tends to attract the worst sort of people. It seems for socialism to actually work we'd have to eliminate such abuses and, honestly, that doesn't seem possible.
I was referring to this from you: “In the future, if socialism were to happen, I think it will come from the people because society has evolved to the point where it is possible (infrastructure) and the people themselves (not a leader) are ready and desirous of the system (culture). I personally do not see how socialism could possibly work if it is not driven by the people (grassroots).”
Socialism in a nation would be a socio-economic/political system where the economic dimension is socialism rather than capitalism. The socio-political dimensions could take many forms (including a constitutional federated Republic).
I am confident that HA is presuming that socialism would necessarily be a pure system of direct democracy where the tyranny of the majority (his fear) can take effect. That presumes a particular political system and then identifies the largest risk of the presumed political system.
If socialism exists in a future USA I can pretty much predict that the political system will not be direct democracy; largely because such a simplistic system could never work at the scale of a modern nation and certainly not one that is currently 327 million and growing.
... and from those words it looks like you presumed a national political system of pure direct democracy.
The meaning of my words is that socialism is likely to happen only if the people want it to happen. This is in direct contrast to the notion that socialism is something that is introduced top-down — a choice of the leaders that is imposed on the people.
Very, very different meaning. Not imposed top-down but rather adopted bottom-up.
So how will society that wants it at some future date impose it over our objections upon those of us who do not? Or are you saying it will never happen until we are all dead and buried and some future society living in this geographical space that is no longer the USA as we know it bring it on by unanimous consent?
Think about this HA. Any change to our socio-economic/political system will either be imposed upon the people by the state or imposed upon the people by the people. (You might include a third option of imposed by God.)
Our ancestors living here in the 18th century who had a common goal (freedom from the tyranny of King George III and the then English system) organized to create the framework of what is now our current socio-economic/political system. Not everyone saw the system the same way and there was not universal support; by a long shot. Our system (via ratification of the compromise known as our constitution) was favorable to most but not to all.
I do not see socialism manifesting in any nation in any of our lifetimes. The change in paradigm is staggering. Evolutionary changes (e.g. the greater prevalence of worker-owned businesses) could be visible, but the evolution of a system that would actually realize distributed economic control by the people is, IMO, generations away (if ever).
Unanimous consent is entirely unrealistic. Expecting that any change could achieve anything close to unanimous consent is silly.
What ever system God has in heaven intended for us as then perfect beings with eternal life that God wants us to do there we will do. Like Reagan said though the only places socialism will work is hell because socialism is hell and Heaven where we won’t need it.
So basically you have nothing to say that responds to what I wrote.
"It would be helpful, certainly, to have each of our 100 senators cast a vote on Daines’ measure, to declare publicly whether they agree with that sentiment. Let each of us see who believes socialism is a threat to liberty, and who does not. While we’re at it, I’d love to see the House vote on the same measure, too, so the American electorate can have more information at hand next year when making their choices in the voting booth."
Just a political stunt, better they work on meaningful legislation, oops we are speaking of the Senate I forgot they do not work.
Maybe to confirm what the founders declared?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We certainly can’t have any of that in a socialist country. Put them all on the record
Ahh, I think I can hear Joe McCarthy laughing from his grave in Appleton Wisconsin.
Maybe someone successfully exorcised him this time, eh Senator Daines?
Today it was Joe Biden speaking like he’s Joe Mc Carthy reincarnated at his Iowa rally.
This silly article wishes to revive a version of the "loyalty oaths" that some wanted to require of people during the heyday of the "red scare" following World War Two and into the 1950's.
If you don't vote yes on renouncing "socialism" then you must be a commie yourself.
Pure insanity.
How about a vote in the Senate on who thinks its wrong to subsidize multi-billion corporations with taxpayer money. Corporate welfare. How about a vote on lobbyists and corporate money in politics? How about a vote on tax loopholes that permit the wealthy to pay nothing. Lets televise it all.
This seed is more nonsense from the right that embarrasses this forum.
What’s sad is that you think the expression of view points different from your own here are supposedly an embarrassment to this platform as if conservatives voices are not supposed to be expressed here.
It seems that the good senator and his fine resolution has upset 😢 the advocates of socialism in its various forms across the nation. More power to him.
There are no advocates of socialism. Socialism is the government controlling the means of production and its distribution. Obamacare is provided by private insurers, private medical providers, and private drug companies. What Republicans call socialism are things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, & housing assistance. They constantly talk about the need to cut government spending by decreasing and/or eliminating these programs, while at the same time drastically increasing government spending with their stupid tax cuts primarily for the already wealthy. Conservatives are simply stupid enough to believe these programs have limited or no value. They are wrong, as they are with pretty much everything.
What the elite socialist left truly desires can be seen in the soon to be released movie, The Hunt.
Sen. Daines:
Denounce socialism except for the corporate aspects of course.
And even more of an 'of course', let us not even discuss how ill served America and Americans have been under the wealth concentrating yoke of Supply Side Economics.
Has Daines lost his pecker?
Trump is a socialist, he uses it constantly.
Tariffs, bailouts, attacking companies like Amazon and Google, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, telling the NFL and NBA which players should be fired... All socialism.
Voted you up---except the Trump is not a socialist--he ( is ) an autocrat. An autocrat that needs the autocracy to protect him and only him. His world is a world of one. Maybe Ivanka makes two.
Trump is an American patriot who openly sides with the working and middle class against the bi coastal ultra rich urban elites in their autocratic ivory towers.
The 'president is an autocrat in a golden tower.
How many patriots are draft dodgers like the 'president'?
Trump is a bullshit artist and a disgrace. Every american is a true american.
He and his family are the penultimate coastal ultra rich urban elites in their autocratic ivory ( and gold plated ) towers.
Oh the irony.
Yet those tax cuts went to the wealthy, not the middle class. And where is that 10% tax cut for the middle class he promised before the mid-terms?
And another ( of course ) and especially for you CH4P, "Of course ( he ) is none of those things."
Actually he is. He is a friend of the working class and has found the magic wand that Obama couldn’t in bringing our jobs back. He didn’t turn his back on us and call us names like Obama and Hillary did.
it is Trumps opposition that called all of us supporters of his deplorables that are the elite bi coastal ivory tower limousine liberals who would subject us all to The Hunt if only they could. Trump is the champion of the common working and middle class citizens.
But he loves America and the American people. The other autocrats and big tech progressives would subject us to the Hunt if only they could find a way to get away with it.
You keep saying that and yet I’m on the borderline of working/middle class and living in California and yet I got a tax cut that led to more money up front and a larger refund, a bonus, and a pay raise greater than inflation. So did most of us.
I didn't defend trump at all...
Trump is the one we are counting on to keep his promise that our country will never be a socialist nation.
Trump is a socialist, HA.
No, he’s not. That assertion is just plain ridiculous. Trump is a capitalist.