Army Bob: Presidential election could decide socialism or free market?

by Robert M. Traxler

Income inequality, economArmy Bob Salutesic fairness, economic justice, redistribution of wealth; are all progressive/socialist concepts. The next presidential election will be a referendum on the national economic system. Do we remain a free market democracy or do we become a Democratic Socialist state?

The movement toward revamping our system of government to a socialist state has come and gone over our history; Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Barack Obama have all attempted to transform our nation to a democratic socialist nation. None of them succeeded, but all chipped away at our Constitution and free market economic system.

Senator Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president and self-proclaimed socialist, has drawn “large” crowds. He drew 10,000 people in Madison, Wisc.; we are told by the media that this is a huge indicator of the direction the country wishes to be pulled. The University of Wisconsin Madison has well over 50,000 people working and studying in the school and 210,000 more in the capital city of Madison; I dare to say most are left of center. Toss in free entertainment and the concept of a free date for a bunch of over-sexed college students and I am shocked he only got 10,000. It is interesting that Donald Trump got well over 13,000 people in Arizona, but that is not an indication of the direction the country wishes to be pulled?

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has decried the vile greed of hedge fund managers as a need for economic fairness, but she takes millions from hedge fund managers. Indeed the faBob Traxler_0ther of her grandchild is a hedge fund manager. The Clinton line on Mark Mezvinsky is, yes he is a hedge fund manager, but it is a small fund with only $400 million in it. Small, by whose standard? Surely not by average Americans.

As we look to Greece we see the problem with economic justice that is out of control. The good folks in Greece feel it is a right to have large salaries and generous benefits, regardless of the fact the nation is broke (25% of the nation work for the government). If Greece can’t pay, then let the Germans; they have more than the Greeks, so they need to share with the less fortunate. Sound thinking socialist style, fairness and equality progressive style.

Let us take a look at a hypothetical argument for social justice and fairness in the local area. Wayland is perceived as more affluent than Dorr, Martin or Hopkins. Folks from Dorr, Martin and Hopkins shop at the stores in Wayland, adding to Wayland’s unfair wealth; Wayland is taking dollars from the pockets of non-Wayland citizens, getting rich on the backs of the working people and that is unjust. The oppressive capitalists of Wayland, backed by the government, must be brought to account for and pay for the crimes against the less fortunate. Social justice and economic fairness dictate that

Wayland redistribute its ill-gotten gains and unjust profits to the less fortunate in Dorr, Hopkins and Martin. A payment of $250,000 per year for each community should be a reasonable start. Fairness and common sense dictate more will be needed in the future to make the oppressors in Wayland atone for their past evil capitalist crimes. An industrially strength dumb idea? A stupid concept? An asinine theory?

In my humble opinion, yes, absolutely, but it is not that far out of line with the democratic socialists concept of social fairness; in fact it may be very much in line with the thinking of Hillary Clinton and the American Progressive Socialist movement.

The American concept of hard work and dedication paying off is lost on a progressive; reward comes only from the government and must be equal to all regardless of effort. Some may not be able to work as hard or as long as others, so social fairness dictates they must be equally compensated for doing less.

If a woman works 18 hours a day seven days a week to build a small business, progressives will chant that she did not build that business, others built it for her; she should not get ahead or be rewarded. After all, the only way she became successful was on the backs of others.

A philosophy shared by President Obama and Mrs. Clinton, a philosophy so strange only a true progressive could believe it. A philosophy so out of line with common sense and reality only a dedicated socialist could believe it; but they truly do believe it.

The election in 2016 will be a referendum on the future of our form of democracy and on our economic system.


Leave a Comment