<<<< Understand this, no one within the ranks of the Socialist/Progressive Movement, in this country or world wide, would have ever penned our national preamble or fought for its inclusion because the Left simply does not think in these terms. They are more concerned with shared pain and social order than with individual freedoms and personal responsibility.
David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in
the 1960's, editor of the radical Left’s largest magazine, Ramparts, and as liberal an
they come. But he came to his
senses, and is now an advocate for
liberty and the American Way.
Here are some thoughts taken from one of his recent speeches:
The political consequences of the
differences between conservatives and progressives is not only not small, it
affects the way both sides conduct their political battles. Progressives focus
on an impossible future, a utopia of promises, and this justifies for them
their unscrupulous means. Issues for them are merely instruments for
accumulating political power. Conservatives look to the past as a guide
to what is possible and humanly practical, and what is not. Issues for them are
problems that need to be fixed, and they take seriously the policies they
devise to address them. This puts conservatives at a huge political
disadvantage. It causes them to argue policy as though they were debating a
party with whom they shared goals and only differed on the means to get there.
But that is far from the case. . . . . you will definitely want to read the full speech, here.
More
from the Editor’s notes: In
this statement (above), Horowitz nails
the difference between the two major political factions in this country, and that difference is this: the societal
goals, the statements made defining those goals, and, the methodologies for supporting and building upon those goals, are
radically different.
Socialist/Progressives ultimately do not want the world
produced by conservative thought and practice.
Their world order has little to do with the esoteric or Utopian policies of shared
pain and wealth; such talk is only
campaign rhetoric designed to keep them in power. Rather,
their world is a totalitarian order where, in the end,
the ruling class is served by the rest of humanity. Conservatives want all to share in “the
ruling class,” with the same opportunities and possibilities for "upward mobility" and the individual's pursuit of happiness and fulfillment.
Understand this and get this fact into your head: Big Government is only possible in a
totalitarian society, period. Personal freedom and the rite to take
advantage of wealth creating opportunities are issues diametrically opposed to
Socialist/Progressives philosophy.
On one occasion, Obama was asked why he did not have to participate in
the same social programs as the rest of the nation. He smiled and said, “Because I am the president.” And that sad statement, makes my point, in this post.
In Obama's world, the "rich" as a class of individuals is replaced rhetorically supplanted by the "ruling class." The "rich" are evil while the "ruling class," those who selfishly possess the wealth of a nation for their personal gain and pleasure, dole out societal wealth (not to be confused with their own personal wealth) and call this two-tier arrangement, "social justice."
Under Obama, and
since the beginning of 2009, the food
stamp program has been redefined,
retooled, and given a political purpose,
that being the re-election of the Socialist/Progressives. The “stamp population” has grown from 28
million to 47 million in the four intervening years, while the middle class has
actually gotten smaller in size.
Understand this: entitlement programs (i.e. “Big Government”) do not grow the
middle class and never have. Their existence serves a greater purpose, to keep social welfare alive, and, the leadership
promising a “free life,” in power.
Today,
nearly half this nation is recipient to the social justice practices and
policies of the Left, but without having
improved their ability to move into the upper and independent Middle Class.
In the end, the fight
we are having, today, and in this country,
is a fight for freedoms and shared opportunities versus cradle to grave
social justice programs and shared mediocrity.
The rich in both political parties have very different
goals: the rich in the Progressive
movement see upward mobility into the Independent Middle Class and
beyond, as a social evil, requiring a certain self-indulgent pursuit of
“stuff” that is not equally shared.
When
Progressive Leadership speaks of “shared pain,” they do not include
themselves; they never include
themselves either in terms of practicality or political policy. With traditionalists, those believing in the founding principles of
this great nation, shared opportunity is a protected
reality and is the foundational, legal concern in a free society.
My final point in this post is this: Understand that no one within the ranks of the Socialist/Progressive Movement, in this country or world wide, would have ever penned this preamble or fought for its inclusion because . . . . . . . . . the Left simply does not think, creatively, in these terms:
Rather than make such a statement or build upon its concept, Michelle Obama defines her husbands radical politic as being opposed to the traditional values of this great nation with these unrepentant words:
May of 2008:
MICHELLE OBAMA, speaking in Puerto Rico before the election: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."