Most of you who are regular readers of this column are aware that my hardworking editor Dee lives in the UK. Living in a socialist environment has given her a unique perspective on the ills of this failed and failing system. The same system (or worse) that the DeMarxists would see instituted here. Unfortunately for them they have run smack dab into the American people. We do not want your socialism. We will not permit you to take our country and freedoms from us.
What follows is Dee’s reply to a critic of the US, excerpted from a chat forum from the island of Guernsey, a British Crown Dependency off of the coast of France. I thought that it would prove instructional. I love the English people, but they have been so inculcated with leftist dogma and institutionalized welfare that all vestiges of independent thinking outside the socialist envelope is lacking along with the spirit of independence. Dee has taken them on and as a Brit she is in a unique position to tell it the way it is.
Forum post in reply to a critic of the USA, 05/19/10, whynotguernsey.com :
Let’s take your points in turn here. First, socialism. Socialism never has and never will work in any country. It’s been tried many times, always with the same result – financial and social disaster. A free economy is the only tried and trusted system. Ok, you get the propaganda a la Michael Moore and Cuba. Have you seen the everyday hospitals that the ordinary folks get treatment in? Socialism means greater state control and big government which swallows up the hard-earned money of the people through taxes.
It would be great to have a university education without the debt to repay….. uh, but who’s going to pay for it? The government I guess – that means us, the taxpayers. I can’t recall anything in the Bill of Rights about further education being a right given by God. If it was, and health care, then surely the three things that all humans need to survive should be free too? Who can survive without air, food and water? Only one of these is free (at the moment, although the left are trying to change this with cap and tax).
No one is refused emergency treatment in the US, insured or not. True, insurance is expensive. That’s the fault of the system which allows huge lawsuits by slip-and-fall lawyers. 60% of a physician’s overheads is legal insurance. The GOP has promised tort reform along with interstate insurance policies to cut these costs. Obama, instead, is dismantling the best medical services in the world in favor of a NHS style one-size-fits-all system. It would be a punishable offense not to purchase health cover from the government. Still sound so good?
Oh, that increasing US debt you mentioned is partly due to the staggering cost of his health reforms, I believe it was one trillion at the last count. Medicare, which provides a wonderful service for seniors, will be cut to help cover the cost of his new scheme. It’ll probably finish up like the UK, where a senior might not be worth the cost of treatment.
While the national debt is rising (naturally, under a socialist), the country can still afford to contribute 25% of the IMF fund, money now being used to bail out EU countries, and possibly Britain (again) soon. To say that the US is one of the poorest countries when it is still the world’s largest economy is a total contradiction.
To quote you: “Teaching something as fact, when it is not proven is wrong. It is ultimately brainwashing, and should be illegal.” Do you agree, then, that global warming should not be taught in schools? It is certainly not proven, in fact the evidence gets flimsier as time goes on.
As for California, as much as I love it, it is a financial and social disaster, thanks to the liberals that have controlled it for so long. Again, it is a victim of socialist policies – unrestrained spending, high state taxes that have forced businesses to other states and too much regulation and bureaucracy in Sacramento. Is it any surprise that there is a backlash from the people?
The difference between the US and Britain is that the US was founded by the people, with government as their servants. This current administration is taking a route towards Euro-socialism, where they believe that rights are granted by government. That won’t wash in the US, as the current mid-term elections are proving. At least they have seen the danger before it sinks into the abyss completely.
When the US economy is rebounding, the UK will still be increasing everyone’s taxes to cover a failed health system, an ineffective police force (now that its teeth have been taken away completely) and development of cleaner, eco-friendly power sources. Well, that’s what the BP ad said, while they screwed up the entire Gulf coast.
There is any easy path back: Force Democrats to Commit to a Particular Vision for America.
To do this, consider a coalition between the Green and the Republican Parties.
Crazy you say?
Hear me out.
What is the best way to expose the basic fraud in the democrat appeal?
Force them to choose between the liberal base and the broad coalition.
What is the best way to do that?
Help the Green Party win those "safe" liberal seats tucked away in the inner cities.
Usually, the Republican Party doesn't even run a candidate in these seats. Why not contribute to Green Party victories in those Gerrymandered Liberal State Representative, State Senate, and U.S. Congressional seats?
How can you do that?
Prevent the democrats from blocking Green Party ballot access. Relax restrictions on ballot access. Contribute money to Green Party campaigns. At every opportunity, attack the hypocrisy of Democrat candidates in comparison to Green candidates.
Don't let the Democrats get away with installing another Baraka tHUSAME Obama in a nice safe State Senate seat like the one in Hyde Park, Chicago. Make the would be "liberal" democrats fight the Green Party for those seats. Make them prove their liberal credentials so that they can't run away from their commitments as soon as they see lobby money waived in their faces.
This is way better than the K-Street project. The Green Party project would actually work.
Think of the effect on the Democrat Party.
Democrats would have to choose between, on the one hand, an honest and straightforward socialist approach, or, on the other hand, a weasel-worded, flim-flam, Obama type campaign of deception in which they promise everything and deliver nothing but image.
How can Republicans continue letting the Democrats finesse all the major issues of the day, without forcing them to commit to their best solution?
Exhibit A: immigration policy.
Exhibit B: trade policy and globalism
Exhibit C: income redistribution
Force the democrat liberals to choose.
You really want "Choice not an Echo," then start by forcing the liberals to choose. It'll make your job easier.
If Green members take the liberal seats in the State Houses and Congress, the Green Party can form a coalition with the Republican Party, just as happens with third parties in Canada, Europe and Israel.
Coalitions allow the parties to unite to accomplish specific goals. It's not true that there could never be a project on which Republicans and Greens could agree. Starting with the selection of a Speaker of the House (state or federal), the opportunity to form a coalition with the Green Party could offer significant advantages to Republicans over their Democrat rivals.
The beauty of a multi-party system is that each party passionately represents it's own constituency. As the constituencies expand, the influence of the party expands. Each party negotiates on behalf of its constituency for the best government possible. There is less ideological fraud.
The Republicans have been trying to run on ideology since 1964 - as if Republicans were in a multi-party system. Instead of a straight up debate, Republicans keep using wedge issues and sleezy (Atwater type) campaigns in order to win. This must be frustrating to those who want to have a full opportunity to work out a functioning philosophy of government. How can you do this if the Democrats can't be pinned down?
Force the democrats to stick with a message. Force them to represent their constituents.
Force the democrats to face the Green Party.
Force liberal democrats to chose between the Democrat Party and the Green Party.
Liberal democrats will either disappear; or, the Democrat Party will accept a fixed ideological position. Either way, is good for Republicans. And, coincidentally, it would be good for America.
The net has been abuzz recently with the recent success of David Cameron's Conservative Party in the recent English local elections, and how it impacts, if at all, the fortunes of the Right here in the United States. David Brooks went so far as to declare the English Tories the leader of conservatism worldwide, a role traditionally held by the American Right. If I may be as bold as to offer my own humble thoughts and the lessons and cautions of the Tories recent victories and prospective majority.
First, the cautions, what must Americans seeking to understand the English Conservative Party's successes keep in mind.
1) Cameron's Tories are benefitly greatly from being the opposition, a luxury that the GOP may have in Congress but not in the White House and in the US, most people focus on the White House when determining who to blame for problems and economic downturns, a result of our wonderful presidential system. So unfortunately the GOP cannot campaign on not having been in power for 11 years like the Tories can. We have plainly seen in poll after poll and indeed vote after vote how independents and soft GOP voters are migrated to the Democrats when given a palatable alternative, something the Democrats have been stellar at since 2006, tailoring candidates perfectly for districts. Voters are tired of the GOP or more accurately what they perceive to be the GOP. Bush fatigue is real, as apparantly Labour fatigue is real on the other side of the Atlantic
2) English Conservatism is different. Ever read National Review's The Corner blog and found a post which seems oddly out of place on a conservative blog? I have, and more often than not the "offending" post is from one of the English born writers on the website. Why is this? Well, the simple fact of the matter is that English conservatism is a different type of conservatism. The type of conservatism that exists in England is far more class conscience, than US conservatism. The GOP has become more and more the party of the white working class whilst the same is not true of the English Tories, who draw their base clearly from the monied classes of England (and I do mean England, the Tories are still pathetically lacking in support in Scotland and Wales.) In this vein, the Tories lack the broad support that the GOP enjoys from religious conservatives and gun owners, a support which all but guarantees the GOP 40 percent of the electorate and most the South and Plain states. Additionally, the welfare state is more firmly entrenched and comprehensive in Britain than in the United States, for example the Tories present themselves as defenders and more compentent administrators of the socialised National Health Service, whilst the American Right is in the position of opposing Democrats efforts to introduce government health care at all. All these factors lead to conclusion that Cameron's new Conservatives are more socially libertarian while at the same time being less economically libertarian than the American Right could ever be.
So, are we to conclude that Cameron's success offers no solutions to the position the GOP finds itself in? By no means. Cameron has shown two excellent traits in particular that I will explore in my next post
