Posted by
American Yank on Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:15:45 PM
Democrat New York Senator and front runner for the Democrat Party Presidential nomination recently spoke at the Manchester School of Technology in Manchester, NH. Her vision for America was typical for those who but into the fallacy of collectivism preached in the 1960s and 70s. Senator Clinton was critical of President Bush’s view of ownership. Instead she embraces a philosophy of ‘we are all in it together’. While what she says may sound nice and rosy, essentially bypassing the failures of previous attempts to employ such thought process, it in all actuality bad for society and sounds very much like socialism.
Collectivism is at the heart of progressive liberal political and economic thought. The roots of such are found in John Locke’s Social Contract writings. In short Locke’s philosophy, which was later expounded on by other philosophers, describes a society where few rights are given up in order for a government to maintain social order. The definition of social order and its interpretation varies as wide as the colors of the rainbow. The term’s description has lent itself to the works of Karl Marx, father of communism to noted French socialist philosopher Emile Durkheim and American sociologist Talcott Patterson. While Ayn Rand’s objectivism (sometimes referred to as individualism) values one’s pursuit and mankind’s pursuit for one’s self is absolute. Her philosophy would jumpstart the Libertarian Party political thought whereby the government at any level should be maintained at a minimum. One of Rayn’s contemporaries and devoted practitioners is former Federal Reserve chairman Allan Greenspan. The economic application of objectivism is found in the Laissez-fare theory of capitalism, which in short calls for little if any government intervention and markets are always self- correcting.
Those who are fully saturated with objectivism may find their legitimization in our American Constitution and in particular with the use of the word ‘we’.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The idea of ‘general welfare’ has often been expounded upon and interpreted liberally by many on the American Left, while securing blessings of liberty has often been ignored. Senator Clinton later said the following, "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none." Is this to say that the eight years of the Bush Administration mitigated that of her husband’s?
America is still the opportunity for all. Isn’t that why we have an illegal immigration problem? Isn’t that many are fleeing lands of no opportunity for a greater chance?
Now Senator Clinton was addressing a college, an assumed institution of higher learning but she has the audacity to state the following, "We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this." No the problem is that our country doesn’t have enough skilled labor and instead would be successful plumbers have bachelor of art degrees in subjects that cannot elevate them to an occupation that doesn’t provide economic advancement. We need more plumbers and electricians and fewer college graduates holding down two part time jobs because there is no market for their chosen major.
Who will be paying for these future college students? Currently we have student loan programs that have seen their usage grow at substantial rates. These mechanisms were not previously available decades ago. Are we now asked to dip in our wallets to foot an additional bill?
Other items not mentioned by Clinton but is often employed by her camp is a higher taxation on oil companies and national healthcare. In fact Clinton stokes and basks in class warfare-the tension (genuine or otherwise) that supposedly exists between the haves and have nots-assuring her constituency that Washington DC has the answer. Yes the same group of elected officials who failed to uphold the enforcement of current immigration laws only to substitute them for a new set of laws can save the day.
Sadly Senator Clinton chooses to ignore the words of the great legendary economist Adam Smith. Unlike Clinton, Smith knew a thing or two about economies. From Smith’s Wealth of Nations It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. ... (Kings and ministers) are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."
It is also even sadder that she chooses to ignore the Tenth Commandment ‘Thou shall not covet your neighbor’ and instead bases her reasoning on the very idea.