Much has been made over political labels recently, with some Republicans daring to label President Barack Obama as a socialist. That should be a relatively unremarkable claim (because he so obviously is socialist in many of his political beliefs), but apparently, some feel the need to protest the label. Some of these same people eschew the “liberal” label, opting for the increasingly popular “progressive” appellation.
Gene Edward Veith, writing in WORLD Magazine, notes one commentator’s description of the president as a “social democrat” and delves into the implications of the worldview of social democracy. Ultimately, it is a “kinder, gentler form of Marxism,” he observes. From the article:
“So ‘social democracy’ is a variety of Marxism that rejects revolution in favor of democracy and that preserves certain elements of capitalism, though under strict state control.
Social democrats are not communists, but their Marxism is evident in their belief in class struggle. Thus the vilification of “the rich” over against “working Americans.” Also Marxist is the project of redistributing wealth, the use of state power to seize control of private property, and the overarching secularism that rejects the past in favor of a materialistic progress.
… we are embracing social democracy without questioning the Marxist worldview and without even realizing what we are doing.”
If Democrats were left unbridled for 20 years, where would the country be? They have at least a couple years in complete control of the political branches of government (and are poised to heavily influence the judicial branch, with impending SCOTUS retirements). If truly allowed to carry out their agenda, what would the country look like? Whatever the details, one dominant fact is clear: individuals would have far less control over their own lives, in favor of a state that has far more.
Now, of course there will always be a degree of opposition, opposition that ebbs and flows. But it is very clear that collectivism – by any name – is on the march. And while patriots have stopped or slowed it at various times, it would be difficult to conclude that it has been anything but on the march for the last half century in this country, given the massive expansion of the state during that time.
Not that we are without hope. (That may be another post in and of itself). But one thing is critical – that we call a spade and spade, that we label things for what they are. Veith and others are right to do just that.