There was a time in my youth and ignorance wherein I believed that the Democratic Party was one whose history was probably at least as august and honorable as that of the Republican Party, but that the former had merely been corrupted by the insinuation of radical leftists into it over the last century. As I discovered, and for reasons that remain somewhat obscure, the Democratic Party has a long history of odious and dishonorable behaviors and policies, which I addressed in my last column in this space.
In light of this, it is quite fitting that the Democratic Party is the one that has spearheaded efforts to advance socialism in America, whether we are talking communism, national socialism, or what is often labeled liberalism or progressivism. To a degree, these labels are immaterial in a practical sense; with the exception of communism, wherein the state maintains absolute ownership and control of the means of production and distribution (using the parlance of economics) and individual liberties are nonexistent, the foregoing nomenclature represents the same outcome, with liberalism and progressivism being the incremental rather than the wholesale implementation of a socialist state.
In recent years, it has also become apparent that the leadership of the Republican Party is colluding with the Democrats in advancing an international socialist agenda, this being the incorporation of our nation into an amalgam of Western socialist states.
The reason I maintain it is fitting that the Democratic Party is the principal entity advancing socialism is in fact due to its questionable history.
Let us examine the common use of the terms “progressive” and “progressivism” by prominent socialists in the Democrat Party. Since the term “liberal” has once again fallen into suspicion as far as the electorate is concerned, socialists have adopted the former two. This is a tactic they have employed on a few occasions over the last century when the public began to awaken to the deleterious nature of their policies.
Indeed, “progressivism” is a misnomer because it is actually retrogressive with respect to sociopolitics. Indeed, it effectively sets government and society back nearly a thousand years.
How can I substantiate this charge? Quite easily, actually. Progressivism, which invariably leads to a full-blown socialist state, is retrogressive because it effectively reverses or negates all of the sociopolitical advancements the West has realized since the Magna Carta was signed by King John of England in 1215. Developments since that time (which admittedly came in fits and starts at times) increasingly focused on individual liberties, which naturally gave rise to cultural and economic stability. Notions of individual liberty and the ability of populations of individuals to govern themselves culminated in our Constitution and other constitutionally governed nations in the West. I realize that aspects of this history have been omitted in the education of some younger Americans; if anyone has questions regarding the autocracy and tyranny that once was commonplace among Western potentates of the era, I would advise them to view the Mel Gibson film “Braveheart.”
Progressivism – the incremental implementation of the socialist state – cavalierly sweeps all of this away. In the case of communism, of course the individual exists solely for the benefit of the state. In milder forms of socialism, whether we’re talking about Sweden or Venezuela, the state directs and regulates the activities of individuals and institutions to its benefit. While such nations as Sweden and other Scandinavian nations were once hailed as success stories of socialism, once they became less homogenous, their societies rapidly declined due to the incompatibility of the alien cultures their governments attempted to assimilate and the onerous economic burdens this placed upon such nations.
The policies of the last four presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have set the stage for the advent of international socialism. I hope that the similarity of this term and the state that existed in Germany from the 1930s through 1945 is not lost on the reader. These policies have also resulted in a sociopolitical climate in America and a geopolitical climate that has become alarmingly tenuous.
In this political environment, Americans are facing a choice in the upcoming general election between one presidential candidate who is possibly the most manifestly evil individual ever to seek the office in Hillary Clinton, and another who promises (if not in so many words) to reverse many of the policies of the last few presidential administrations in Donald Trump.
Due to the fact that Trump is either not a tried-and-true conservative or because he possesses a certain P.T. Barnum, carny barker quality, many conservatives have rallied to inform all who will listen that he will be a horrible choice for America. They claim that under Trump, we will be as bad off as under Barack Hussein Obama, or as bad off as we would be under Hillary Clinton.
If Trump does prove to be yet another stealth progressive, we will indeed find ourselves in a perilous place, but no worse off than we are under Obama, or than we would be under Clinton, stark and horrifying though this prospect may be. If, however, Trump performs in keeping with the tone of his campaign, then we will be in an infinitely superior position.
Thus, it would seem that it is the civic duty – even for conservatives who distrust Donald Trump intensely – to take that gamble, given that stark and horrifying alternative.
Media wishing to interview Erik Rush, please contact [email protected].