The Other Problem with Socialism

As if there were not enough problems already with the evils of Socialism, there's this gem that I discovered this morning: Socialism not only views its own actions as a morally correct path, it defines them as the morally correct path. And not to follow that path is conversely morally evil. I don't see how you could see it any other way. So, when George W. Bush does not use the power he has to bring about Socialist policies, he is in fact committing evil, though all he has done is chosen not to steal from one person to give to another.

I hit on this perspective while considering the tipping point for various peoples to reject their government, after watching the movie "Valkyrie" last night. This is a dicey topic, to say the least, and I in no way reject our government beyond any of the legal political mechanisms that our founders were so kind enough to set in place. The fact that I had to spell that out is a sign of our times.

But my connection between the two topics was made by blogersations (conversations in the blogosphere) with a liberal friend of mine. We argued about the election, and about the abject hate directed at Bush. She said it was justified based on Bush's actions. Given that these people were comparing Bush to Hitler (not in passing, not in jest, but actually really giving them the same standing), I think we had better start examining EXACTLY what those actions are, what Hitler's actions were, and what actions we truly think ought to spark a revolution.

Again, this was from the words of a liberal friend of mine, who thought the comparison was justified. Maybe they don't understand what making that comparison means. Maybe after watching the movie I just watched they'll understand. What I think it means, although I think there was a lot of smoke being blown as well, was that they thought some kind of non-political revolution might be justified, particularly if Bush was not gotten out of office (and a political-clone was not put in to replace him). But, that is the beauty of our political system, that we can blow lots of smoke and have it exorcised when we vote. Even if we lose, there's a certain catharsis to having at least cast our vote.

Finally, the point is that Socialism's tipping point in determining the evils of a president or leader is not in terms of whether he thought torture was good, or had some personal scandal of monumental sin (boy, Bill Clinton proved that!), but in whether they implemented Socialst policy. If he had used his power to advance Socialism, then all would have been forgiven about the War on Terror, etc. (As if he needed to apologize for what the Terrorists did to us). If they thought he was trying to bring about Socialist utopia to Iraq, and the far off reaches of the earth, the conflict would be justified. But to bring about anything less, then forget it, no dice, no pass, you're Hitler.

I leave you with one final thought, a topic for another article another day. Since I as a conservative believe that Bush has embraced Socialism, at least tentatively, where does that leave the Socialist Left? Their anger was predicated on his lack of Socialism, but here at the end he has given them everything they wanted and more. If this had happened at the beginning, would things be different?

"Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear." - I Peter 1:17