Socialism and the Rudy Syndrome
When Congress approved a $730 Billion economic relief package last month, it was hard not to wonder how America had transitioned to socialism without so much as a polite discussion of whether it was a good idea. Here at The Rudy Syndrome, we advocate for a system of hard work and achievement that is antithetical to socialism. So, we couldn't help but ask the question: how in the world did we get here?
Socialism, as posited by Karl Marx, is a system of economic and political theories that encourages community ownership and allocation of the collective wealth of a society. Socialists typically believe that a free-market, capitalistic system gives an unfair balance of power and wealth to a small number of people at the top of the food chain. They prefer a society where power and wealth are distributed evenly, without regard to the underlying contribution.
We disagree. Hard work and determination should result in advancement and rewards. If you develop your skill on par with your talent, you should expect an appropriate level of success and earnings. It is not acceptable to force those people who give all their effort day in and day out to contribute the fruits of their labor to a pool that will be reallocated to people who haven't given the same effort. Sadly, that is exactly where we are in America today.
We are taking nearly $1 Trillion from tax payers (if you count the economic relief package, the FNMA and FHLMC bail outs, and the AIG bail out) and redirecting it to people who failed to repay debts they agreed to pay. Let there be no mistake about it, the economic relief package is not bailing out Wall Street, it is bailing out individual people who haven't paid mortgage and other loans that they promised to pay. That is an outrage. If you agree to pay a debt, you should be required to repay it. Don't blame it on someone else's lending policies or aggressive sales pitch. If you say you will repay it, repay it.
Furthermore, we are now on the verge of potentially transitioning to a socialistic administration where pooling resources and allocating the collective community funds is supported wholeheartedly. Are we now in a society where so many people have the Rudy Syndrome that we think socialism is good? God help us if we are. Shame on us if we are so complacent that we believe it is okay to take from the hard workers and give to the slackers.
This is a stronger opinion piece than I usually write here. But, since I don't hear anyone talking about this issue, it strikes me that maybe we arrived at this socialistic juncture so gradually that no one even noticed we are on the brink of full blown Marxism. It's the old frog in the beaker analogy.
If you agree this is a dangerous and slippery slope, start talking about it with people you know. Commit to avoiding the Rudy Syndrome at all costs. Develop your skill on par with your talent and demand to be rewarded for your efforts. And, whatever you do, vote your conscience on November 4.
Socialism, as posited by Karl Marx, is a system of economic and political theories that encourages community ownership and allocation of the collective wealth of a society. Socialists typically believe that a free-market, capitalistic system gives an unfair balance of power and wealth to a small number of people at the top of the food chain. They prefer a society where power and wealth are distributed evenly, without regard to the underlying contribution.
We disagree. Hard work and determination should result in advancement and rewards. If you develop your skill on par with your talent, you should expect an appropriate level of success and earnings. It is not acceptable to force those people who give all their effort day in and day out to contribute the fruits of their labor to a pool that will be reallocated to people who haven't given the same effort. Sadly, that is exactly where we are in America today.
We are taking nearly $1 Trillion from tax payers (if you count the economic relief package, the FNMA and FHLMC bail outs, and the AIG bail out) and redirecting it to people who failed to repay debts they agreed to pay. Let there be no mistake about it, the economic relief package is not bailing out Wall Street, it is bailing out individual people who haven't paid mortgage and other loans that they promised to pay. That is an outrage. If you agree to pay a debt, you should be required to repay it. Don't blame it on someone else's lending policies or aggressive sales pitch. If you say you will repay it, repay it.
Furthermore, we are now on the verge of potentially transitioning to a socialistic administration where pooling resources and allocating the collective community funds is supported wholeheartedly. Are we now in a society where so many people have the Rudy Syndrome that we think socialism is good? God help us if we are. Shame on us if we are so complacent that we believe it is okay to take from the hard workers and give to the slackers.
This is a stronger opinion piece than I usually write here. But, since I don't hear anyone talking about this issue, it strikes me that maybe we arrived at this socialistic juncture so gradually that no one even noticed we are on the brink of full blown Marxism. It's the old frog in the beaker analogy.
If you agree this is a dangerous and slippery slope, start talking about it with people you know. Commit to avoiding the Rudy Syndrome at all costs. Develop your skill on par with your talent and demand to be rewarded for your efforts. And, whatever you do, vote your conscience on November 4.
There are plenty of people talking about it online: I just read this">http://myrhaf.blogspot.com/2008/10/bureaucratizing-wall-street.html">this blog entry shortly before reading yours. The problem is that yours, his, and mine are small audiences. I appreciate that we can still speak out and the more that do will eventually turn the tide--I doubt we could do it quickly enough.
I see ominous parallels to the lead-up to the Great Depression and FDR's presidency. Heck, Barack Obama is even planning to resurrect">http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7K20RiBJeMQhhTZUST64ABObHjAD93R8V700">resurrect the WPA, which is straight out of FDR's playbook. The problem, as I see it, is that the culture of today is far more in the grip of socialism and relativism than FDR's time and a lot of what he could only have dreamed about (due to the sizable resistance both publicly and legally to his overreaches) would be welcomed today.
All we can do is speak out and hope that the American people are not seduced by the false promise and fatal conceit of socialism. Most of us have spent our lives in fear of the communist menace and understanding that socialism was communism light, so there's a possibility of a kneejerk reaction. But I don't think we can bank on it like we used to.
If Obama wins, we must rededicate ourselves and our party to the Goldwater vision. We must agitate within the GOP for a platform of limited government, economic freedom, and personal responsibility. Obama could be, as much as it pains me to say this, the best thing that's happened to the Republican Party if we are able to retake the party.
Reply to this
All I can think to say after all that has happened is, "Who is John Galt?"
Reply to this