The following is taken from a recent letter to the editor in my local, hometown newspaper:
Norman Mattoon Thomas was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. As a candidate he said this in a speech in 1944: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist party. The Democrat party has adopted our platform.”
Mr. Thomas made this prediction in 1944. Nineteen forty-four! Unbelievable. This shows us how long it takes for social change to occur. It’s a slow, insidious process that ultimately takes on a life of its own. But he was right: Being a democrat today is not the same as having been a democrat forty years ago. I know many people who don’t understand this. This past weekend I was out with some friends, one of whom votes democrat. He is not a modern liberal at all: This man own guns; he’s a traditionalist; and he would not favor individual rights at the expense of the societal good. Yet he has no idea that this is what his supposed party has morphed into. He’s under the impression that being democrat is still a good thing.
I had an old neighbor once who was just as in the dark. She was (is) a lifelong democrat and would never consider voting otherwise. Like my friend, she’s a kool-aid drinker. Honest, independent-minded Americans can’t possibly defend being a democrat in the 21st century.
Obama has spent the better part of two years claiming he’s a centrist. A reasonable guy. He even eschews the word socialist, despite the fact that he embodies everything it stands for. (If it walks like a duck…) It stands to reason, Mr. President, that if you can’t call something by its name and feel good about it, then you’re admitting there’s something wrong with the term itself. One of these days you’ll have to fess up that you’re a socialist. I know it’s hard to come to terms with the fact that you stand virtually alone (with a few other lost souls) in this regard – but the truth is that you can’t call your party the Democratic party anymore. As Norman Mattoon pointed out so astutely, the Democrat party has adopted the Socialist platform.
January 26th, 2010 at 7:10 am
What’s sad is that our decline into socialism is being facilitated not by ideology, but by ignorance.
January 26th, 2010 at 7:19 am
yeah monkey.Its the ” wouldnt it be nice if ” mentallity.
January 26th, 2010 at 7:48 am
@Suzanne,
Brilliant quote by Thomas, and one so very few people know. It puts that definite, “AHA! Now I get it!”, onto why so many of us Conservatives look at Democrats as being nothing more than Socialists, but not really knowing why we felt that way.
My query is this: If Socialism is such hot stuff, then why don’t the wanna-be Socialists living in America just move to Socialist countries? (Oh, that’s right…most Socialist countries don’t have freedom. It’s easier and better to live here where I can whine about how much I hate America, and yet enjoy all its freedoms and luxuries.) This is America. We don’t want to be fundamentally changed into the USSA.
To pull out a statement so popular when I was a youngster, “America- love it or leave it you filthy hippies!” (If you need it, I’d be happy to call up some travel agencies and coordinate some one-way tickets to Venezuela for ya.)
January 26th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Here is the question I have. If Socialism is soo bad, and the Democrats are nothing but Socialists, how is it that they control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency? Are they that good at wrapping their agenda in half truths to get people to look past the Socialism or are the conservatives not doing enough to expose the agenda for what it is???
January 26th, 2010 at 9:50 am
It has a lot to do with the media Rowdym. The MSM is the communications arm of the Democratic Party.
Ask your average newsie which party was most closely associated with the KKK and they’ll tell you Republicans even though history shows that they were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.
After the Civil Rights Act was passed but before the internet was mainstreamed, the Democrats and media had 25 years to spread racist propaganda about Republicans. That’s hard to turn around.
That’s just one example how the media helps the Democrats. There’s plenty more.
January 26th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Oh C’mon!!!
January 26th, 2010 at 10:18 am
“Being a democrat today is not the same as having been a democrat forty years ago. I know many people who don’t understand this.”
I do, those were the days when they actually had the balls to blow up our enemies…
Nukes none the less
January 26th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Environmentalism, Public options…
Beware
January 26th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Monkey;
“Oh C’mon!!!”
Aint that Franks favorite line ?
January 26th, 2010 at 10:28 am
My reply to Rowdym is stuck in moderation. You have to be so d*mned careful what you say anymore. I know what sent me there but it was not used in a derogatory sense so I’m frustrated.
January 26th, 2010 at 11:52 am
@Rowdym,
Yes. Well, Yes on the first part, but the second part is changing. Conservatives are speaking out, but with the GOP being nothing more than Dem-lite these days, we Independent Conservatives seem to have a two-front battle.
flyingmonkey also brought up a good point regarding the lame-stream-media. Only a completely deluded buffoon would argue that it wasn’t blatantly obvious the MSM was doing their best to make Obama look like the Messiah during and after the election of 2008.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Honest, independent-minded Americans can’t possibly defend being a democrat in the 21st century.
No more so than they can defend membership in the Republican party anyway. I honestly can’t say which is worse.
This shows us how long it takes for social change to occur. It’s a slow, insidious process that ultimately takes on a life of its own.
Haha, so all “social change” is “insidious”, huh? Leave it to the social cons to equate all forms of cultural evolution with disease.
He is not a modern liberal at all…he would not favor individual rights at the expense of the societal good
Actually that sounds like exactly the sort of progressive, paternalist “modern liberal” that you’re so worried about. The greater good argument is pure nanny state crap.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I agree with the main stream media being totally bias towards Obama during the election and for most of 2009. I think some of that is changing as it becomes more and more apparent that there is an up swelling of emotion (mostly anger) directed at the current administration. The media has to maintain viewers to continue getting the advertisements etc, and they cannot ignore the anger. It will be interesting to see if the emotions carry through to the mid term elections in November or will Obama and his minions find some way to turn it around (normally blaming Bush).
January 26th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
@rhayader,
“Insidious – to sit upon – working on spreading harmfully in a stealthy or subtle manner” – Webster Dictionary –
Does not equate to a disease – although I can see where it can be inferred as such. As to which party to defend being a part of, I guess that would depend on what your values and beliefs are. I personally think it is better to vote for a candidate than for the party they represent. Actually I support taking the party affiliation off of the ballets. let people do the research on what the candidate has done and what they say they will do instead of checking a box due to Democrat or Republican. While I am on my wish list, I wish candidates would campaign for something ( their ideas, their values, their beliefs) instead of against something ( the other guy wants to do this or will do this etc). I know I dream big but if only………
January 26th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Does not equate to a disease
It’s a term with purely negative connotations often used to describe bodily disease. I didn’t infer an insult, the author implied one.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
They’re called “progressives”. But thats not what they’re calling themselves.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
No, I did not mean all social change is insidious — and you’re right, that wasn’t clear. I’m not against change at all — if something’s broken, that is.
January 26th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I’d still call your friend a true blue liberal though — or, like Mick said, the preferred term “progressive” — whether you think so or not. Constitutionalism simply requires that we “favor individual rights at the [possible] expense of the societal good.” Jeffersonian liberalism — the philosophical foundation of our government — leaves no room for collectivism and paternalism.
January 26th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
@Rowdym,
I can only hope that you are right. The funny thing is, as a news junkie, I wish the MSM would actually report the news and not be so, so, so, slobbery over Obama. If they did this, they might pull in some viewers. However, for the sake of integrity, if they ever do start behaving like journalists again, they will need to make amends and publicly apologize for their atrocious behavior thus far.
A little accountability never hurt anyone.
January 26th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
@Donald
I wish any news broadcast would just tell me the facts and let me decide what to think. I have not found one that does that yet. I have found some that are better than others but opinions always creep in. In talking to others it is amazing to hear ” I believe xyz” and when you ask why, they state “it was on the news”. They do not understand that what they have just parroted as their opinion was a news person giving their opinion of a story.
And please do not give me an excerpt without a way to look or research the entire thing. A 20 second sound bite from a 2 hour speech does not tell me anything. Anyone can edit a speech, etc and make it sound the way they want. Also, I want balanced coverage, not a 2 minute video of one person saying something and then a blurb about “meanwhile, xyz said…”. if you show the one speaking, show the other.
Man my wish list is getting long
January 26th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
“the philosophical foundation of our government — leaves no room for collectivism and paternalism.”
Unfortunately the messiah has said he was 5 days from fundamentaly changing the United States of America.
Ans yes, I firmly believe that he wants a collectivist socialist society like the Borg answering to one voice
January 26th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
What’s the old phrase “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” The sad thing is that I don’t think that any of the intentions of the left are good when it comes to the move towards Socialism.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
@Ryan
Actually, the Dems are not paving a road to Hell. They lack a fundamental belief in it as a possible destination.