As the candidate of the Socialist Party, Norman Thomas ran in every presidential election between 1928 and 1948. He never came close to getting an electoral vote — nor did he expect to — because his party’s views were considered very radical at the time.
Among the planks of the Socialists’ 1932 platform were proposals for:
» Public works programs
» Minimum-wage laws
» Unemployment insurance
» Subsidized housing
» A five-day work week
» Abolition of child labor
» Health insurance and government pensions for the elderly
» Higher taxes on inheritances and income
Qualifying as one of history’s most successful failures, Thomas lived to see Americans embrace his Socialist ideals. Today, it is unthinkable that an employer, not government, could decide how much to pay his workers and how many hours he needed them to work — or that families and charities, not government, should provide for the aged and the unemployed. Indeed, the Socialist Party platform of 75 years ago looks positively conservative compared with the modern Democratic Party.
Consider that the leading Democratic presidential contenders aren’t satisfied with government-provided health care for the elderly; they want government-provided health care for all.
Today, subsidized housing isn’t provided only for the poor; it’s available for the middle class as well. Democrats don’t want to tax merely inheritances and income; they want to tax everything that is carbon-based. If Thomas espoused the Socialist dream, then today’s Democrats are Socialists on steroids.
They get away with it because Americans, lamentably, have acquired a taste for expansive government — and because cunning leftists know better than to define their beliefs for what they are.
As the late author Upton Sinclair wrote to Thomas in 1951, “The American people will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. … Running on the Socialist ticket, I got 60,000 votes. Running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000.”
To wit, Democratic presidential contenders John Edwards and Hillary Clinton don’t hawk socialized medicine; they support “universal health care.” Taxpayer-subsidized housing is billed as “affordable housing for the middle class.” High taxes that drain household budgets are “investments in our future.” Are we really dumb enough to swallow this stuff whole?
Even more staggering is the number of Americans who evidently prefer government control to individual freedom. Hillary Clinton has said if she is elected president, privatization of Social Security will be “off the table.”
Why is that a selling point for her? “Protecting” Social Security from privatization merely prevents Americans from amassing greater wealth in private accounts. It protects the government’s interest, not theirs.
Or consider Edwards’ recent proposal to make regular physical exams mandatory. In his perfect world, the government not only would control individuals’ health care, but also would dictate when citizens must see a doctor.
Moreover, Edwards has said he wants Americans to “sacrifice” their SUVs — i.e., he will ban them if it’s within his presidential power — despite the fact that they are the vehicle of choice for many people, including him.
Announcing that he wants to diminish freedom and personal choices shouldn’t add to Edwards appeal; it should identify him as an undesirable candidate.
It is similarly baffling that Clinton is leading among Democratic contenders after she promised, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” That is straight out of Karl Marx’s playbook to take “from each according to his ability” and give “toeach according to his need.”
Whatever happened to the American hallmarks of self-determination and personal liberty? The 2008 presidential campaign officially started only this week, but already it is disheartening — even alarming — to hear what candidates obviously think holds appeal.
There is much talk among Democrats about giving everyone a bigger share of the kitty; Clinton has railed against individualism. “Universal” benefits and “free” this or that always resonate with the uninformed.
If anyone is telling Americans they should expect less from their government instead of more — echoing John F. Kennedy’s challenge to “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” — it has not been heard in these quarters.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism,” Thomas predicted. “But under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until America will one day be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”
Some of us can see how it’s happening. The question is: Can we stop it?
Examiner Columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
