I just read an article over at Breitbart discussing David Horowitz’s recent comments at a Heritage Foundation function where he, in no uncertain terms, labeled the entire Democrat Party a bunch of “communists”.
“My parents called themselves progressives,” Horowitz explained with regard to his communist parents. “The agenda was a Soviet America…the slogan of the communist party in those days was peace, jobs, democracy. Sound familiar?”
“The communist party is the Democratic Party.”
Having watched Horowitz come out of the closet as a conservative in the early 1990s, I found Horowitz’s positioning and timing interesting. The Heritage Foundation is influential among many conservatives who cling onto the GOP because they continue to believe that it somehow will throw them more than bones when it comes to liberty. And, here we find many democrats and independents joining republicans in questioning the whole idea of Obamacare, with many critics of Obama using the “communism” and “socialism” to describe what Obama and D’s really want / intend.
I also found it to be a GOP-centric attempt at focusing Republicans on a legitimate foe, while avoiding the real issue at hand when it comes to communism.
Lets be clear: You or I really would not care one ounce about communism if communists just went off and bought some property on their own someplace in order to create a voluntary communist enclave that is populated by those who voluntarily choose to join and remain part of such a commune, while leaving the rest of us alone.
The problem is, most all communists want to foist their ideology on the rest of us without giving us a choice in the matter. THAT is the problem with communism, but for the few on the fringe who simply joined communes and were done with it: It is inherently authoritarian. (Authoritarian meaning “The State has the Authority to Do as It Pleases regardless of individual liberty / consent”, keeping in mind that democracy can be fully authoritarian at the expense of minorities.)
That said, I don’t care about communism per say, but I do care about the means people choose to implement it.
That in mind, we need to run ALL politicians through the lens of individual LIBERTY. There we quickly discover that Communism itself is not a danger, but rather AUTHORITARIAN communism (albeit a redundant phrase in practice, since 99.5% of communists wish to force their fellow humans into their ideology, even if it means nearly 100 million deaths, as we have previously witnessed in the 20th century).
In other words, we would have rooted-out / exposed Obama’s true problem — he’s an authoritarian at heart – and not gotten gummed up in the debate over if he’s a communist (socialist, etc) or not, a debate many still find themselves sucked into today.
That said, when we use the Lens of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, we can most assuredly discover that all progressives and most all democrats a quasi-authoritarian to full-blown authoritarian types, believing that, while some liberty should be protected, Government should ultimately decide and may, when convenient, void whatever liberties it so chooses — ala, once again, Obamacare. (Notice now how the whole “is Obamacare Socialist or not” debate similarly distracts from the real point: We’re all chained to it!)
However, we also discover the hypocrisy of many of those who shout loudly about the bogeyman of communism. While they have fingered a dangerous foe, they often promote a different, authoritarian-method-enforced philosophy or set of priorities which is similarly dismissive or dangerous to Individual liberty. In this we find most all progressives and a ton of liberty-lip-service GOPers.
What we will find, if we are honest and not hypocritical, is that most elections argue over various shades of authoritarian behaviors laundered through the ballot box,