The Left/Rightists:

Democrats seek to make the world better by freeing us from the evils of greed and preserving our rights as people. Republicans work to getting back to tradition while protecting our family values. This is the landscape of American politics today, and it couldn't get any better. The two parties have it's differences, but what they agree on is that government is the solution to your problems, and those problems need to be fixed. While one party is trying to champion human rights the other is securing American interests.

Schools should be run by the government, mixed economies are okay, taxes should go up: all compromises made between the Democrats and Republicans to make the government big enough to tackle today's problems. To help out our politicians we need some campaign finance reform to keep out corruption and we need solidarity to run our complex bi-partisan platform.

Democrat or Republican, if there's one thing we can agree on it's that Socialism WORKS!

But does it really work?

freeing us from the evils of greed:

The Democratic Party says in it's platform that the economy is driven by the private sector but "the national community" is what makes the big difference - of course, referring to Socialist welfare programs and institutions. These are the same programs instituted by many other Communist and Socialist nations, ones that only squandered and destroyed wealth in the process.

preserving our rights as people:

The same party that wants to protect our "rights" also wants guns outlawed, drugs prohibited (in accordance with it's party platform), public ownership of medicine and health care, schools, utilities... the Democratic system is not one that values private property rights, in fact, it's implicitly against them in almost every form.

getting back to tradition:

It's funny that the first Republican president was the one to start the Income Tax and military conscription. And get back to its traditional roots it has. The Republican Party counters much of the Democratic Party's economic meddling by fighting for "free markets" and "capitalism" but it makes a very poor advocate for both, since no Republican administration has been successful in reducing overall government spending, or the overall tax rates. Take for instance, the latest administration of George W. Bush (Jr.), which saw the first ever 2 trillion dollar plus federal budget, an expansion of socialist welfare programs of $96 billion in two years - twice as much as Bill Clinton's administration but in a third as much space of time, and his running up of a $106 billion dollar plus budget deficit.

Getting back to tradition - the tradition of unparalleled and uncontrollable government growth.

protecting our family values:

The Republican Party Platform endorses the government's special ruling on issues that "threaten" families, like homosexuality, prostitution, and drug use. In the GOP's eyes, the government is a vessel to fix social ills that affect the family, much as it has been in many Socialist republics of our past. Nevermind that regardless of the reform, Republicans need to tax to support these institutions and then create law to restrict the conduct of private individuals.

it couldn't get any better:

The Democrat/Republican idiom is the ruling force over politics in the United States today, but how does it explain the growing trend of U.S. policy making towards Authoritarian Socialism? Parties may finger-point, but it may be just another part of the New American Myth to believe that one party over the other is responsible for the changes.

government is the solution to your problems:

The one thing both parties will agree on is that government is the solution to your problems - not you. Wherever the social ill or economic quibble, government stands there ready to help. The only problem the American colonialists had against the king of Britain was his government's arbitrary rule - and, for a time, government existed to secure man's right to rule himself. Whether the Socialistic aspects of our main parties assist us in keeping government there for that purpose is up for the reader to decide.

those problems need to be fixed:

Both the Republican and Democrat party platforms exist on the idea that there are problems, but government is the solution. While Democrats work to ban guns, Republicans work to ban non-government approved marriages. Both concede that government must act to prevent these social ills, thus embracing increased taxation and government spending.

champion human rights:

The Democratic Party adopts a dangerously Socialist ideology in their "rights" campaign - equality by compulsion. Be it through tax code or new "bill of rights" to secure "rights" a free man never had, Democrat policy making has much to explain before it can entirely remove itself from the Socialisms of years past.

securing American interests:

On the other hand, the Republican Party, while not leaning towards the Socialist economic model, brings about the Socialist domestic model to prevent what it considers "social ills". What Republicans don't realize is that to implement this model, they must restrict trade and increase taxes and government spending. If anything, this simply demonstrates that when personal liberties are stifled, so are economic ones, and visca versa.

Schools should be run by the government:

Strangely, neither party advocates that schools should be privatized (but both spend a lot of time bickering over what should be taught). While some argue this is because schools are too vital a market, but we should know by now that Socialism only WORKS! when education is controlled by government. It's a big part of the Communist Manifesto, after all.

mixed economies are okay:

Are the arbitrarily defined mixed market practices of the Republicans and Democrats acceptable? Does large, unbridled central government help society? Only further analysis of how Socialism WORKS! can answer these questions.

taxes should go up:

During no presidency has core taxes or government spending ever had an overall decline. The federal budget simply grows, and as of 2002, the budget was over 2 trillion dollars with no signs of decay. Does this kind of government spending befit a nation that overthrew its government on tariffs on things like tea and stamps? Or is it true that the modern U.S. government headed by our Left/Right leaders passed more Tea and Stamp Acts than the old British monarchy ever has?

to make the government big enough:

The ultimate question we must ask ourselves is that if both parties are not in favor of a Socialist/Authoritarian model, then why is government always growing in scope, size, function, overall spending, abilities to levy taxes (direct and indirect), impede trade, and prohibit private activities?

campaign finance reform:

One thing both parties advocate (while neither will admit the other is in favor for it) is "campaign finance reform". This includes contribution caps to parties, donation rules and requirements, ballot restrictions, campaign restrictions, and the control of tax-financed election funds. Why do both parties support campaign finance reform measures? Because reforms unilaterally benefit the two large parties, preventing others from gaining any real political power. While the big two parties receive millions of dollars to campaign and special benefits on ads and debates, third parties and private citizens who would actively criticize politicians are muffled by campaign caps and outright regulated markets. Most third parties need to meet absurd petition requirements to even be recognized on a ballot, while Democrat and Republican candidates get a free ticket. The Debate Commission essentially bribes networks to only feature Democrat/Republican candidates while the Federal Election Commission doles out millions to Democrat/Republican-only candidates.

Most reformers make a rally call against "big money contributors", the kind that buy out politicians despite such regulations regularly, and the kind that would elevate third parties to competitive status. These kinds of reforms do more to restrict political competition and muffle dissenters than it does to prevent any actual corruption in government, as loopholes are provided in the important areas for Democrats/Republicans, but not for any other party. Incumbents are always to benefit, according to a Cato Institute report on soft money contributions, since the restrictions tend to hinder challengers moreso than up-and-comers.

solidarity:

Socialism critic Ludwig Von Mises would describe a system like our bi-party system as Solidarist, where political ideologies operate on principles of "social solidarity" moreso than any sound economic or domestic principle of personal property rights. That's because the two parties each find Socialist/Authoritarian reforms "okay" in instances that push what they feel "fixes the economy" or "helps our interests". This arbitrary thinking, similar in it's "government fixes all" mentality, would only be called Socialist if it ever sat down on one path to it's logical ends.

Whether our politicians are ready to do just that and whether their policies are healthy for the U.S. is something we'll leave the readers to think about.

« Go back to Socialism WORKS!