Sunday, November 05, 2006

Der Wannabe Fuerher Speaks

On March 3, 2004 Hillary Clinton gave a speech called “Keep America Working: Restoring Jobs to Ensure American Prosperity.” When you get past the vague, folksy wording to figure out what she is really saying, the speech offers a fascinating insight into Senator Clinton’s ideas.

It is a fascist speech. When I use the word “fascist,” I do not mean by it what the left means, which is “anyone the left dislikes.” Ayn Rand wrote in “The Fascist New Frontier,”

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it -- at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.

The communist form of socialism, in which the state owns the means of production, would never be accepted by the American people. Since the New Deal America has been heading toward the fascist form of socialism, in which ownership of the means of production is kept in private hands, but the government “regulates” -- tells owners what they can and cannot do. Hillary Clinton, like all Democrats and most Republicans, is just another politician in the American fascist tradition that starts with FDR.

I’d like to look at just the few interesting and very telling passages in this long, boring speech. Like her husband, she shows a talent for wonkish knowledge of the details, but I want to deal with her broader, more philosophic statements here. If you think I’m quoting out of context, you can follow the link above and read the whole speech for yourself.

You know, for the last 100 years, we have slowly and steadily constructed a social compact. Our nation has built the foundation for our prosperity on the basis of that compact. And the compact was, really, rooted in the principles of the American dream, you know, if you do work hard, you do play by the rules, you do get a good education, you do have willingness to get ahead and sacrifice today to make life better for the next generation, you will be rewarded with a decent paying job that provides a standard of living that gives you a better chance at the American dream. And that, at least in the past, provided health care benefits and some kind of pension retirement security in addition to Social Security.
By “compact” Hillary Clinton means the mixed economy, or welfare state. She thinks the foundation for our prosperity is due to government intervention in the economy. She thinks that if we had a laissez-faire capitalist economy (also known as "freedom"), then we would not have prosperity.

Many people talk about President Franklin Roosevelt's great contribution, saving capitalism from itself.
Hillary Clinton repeats a common myth. FDR did not save capitalism from itself. As Benjamin Anderson demonstrates in “Economics and the Public Welfare: Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-1946,” the economy was recovering from the mild depression that resulted from the stock market crash of 1929 when Roosevelt was elected. His first 100 days brought Bismarck’s welfare state to America and plunged the economy into the Great Depression.

Others speak about the way that retooling for World War II and the defense industry not only helped to win a World War, but enabled the post-war years to start off on a strategy of success, based on that huge investment that was made.
Hillary Clinton thinks government intervention in the economy and massive spending in WWII enabled the post-war economic boom. But if the government did not spend the money, what does she think free individuals would do with their money? Throw their gold coins in the air and shoot holes in them? And she thinks economic success depends on a strategy determined by the government (also known as a "planned economy").

(Mark Skousen argues that the WWII economic boom was caused in large part by private savings.)

I remember as a young child in elementary school, having my teacher tell me that I had to study math and science, because President Eisenhower said we had to compete with the Russians, so we needed more scientists, and we needed more mathematicians, not that I could qualify on either front, but I took it very seriously and took my homework home and did it on the table in the kitchen.

God, she sounds like a Young Pioneer in the Soviet Union. Comrade Hillary, wearing her red tie, studies math and science at the kitchen table because the leader said our nation needs more scientists!

We have, at very (sic) point in our history, risen to the challenges that we've confronted, in innovative ways, that called out the best in Americans.

Hillary Clinton thinks that government intervention in the economy is calling out the best in Americans.

What I regret deeply in the current climate, in this administration, is the air of fatalism, of defeatism, that I hear all too often.

Hillary Clinton thinks that less government (also known as “freedom”) is fatalism and defeatism.

…I don't think our country has an economic strategy.

Hillary Clinton does not understand that economic freedom is the only strategy that works. In a free America 300 million Americans would plan the economy by making rational calculations using the pricing system. Government intervention only interferes with the rational calculations of individuals.

This woman needs to read Ludwig von Mises. Do you think she would understand him?

And yet we know we are in the midst of an American job crisis. Some have accepted that as inevitable. The unavoidable result of free trade, the unavoidable result of lower standards for labor or the environment…

Hillary Clinton thinks that free trade and lower regulations destroy jobs.

And I end where I started, with attitude, with the feeling that somehow team America is not on the playing field, because we don't have leadership that is really calling us to be as creative and competitive as possible.

By “team America” she means the mixed economy, government intervention. Without government leadership, she thinks free Americans will not be as creative and competitive as possible.

It is just not the case that what makes America unique is that we have rich people. You can find rich people anywhere, literally, just pick a place, pick a continent. What has made America unique and so successful is the way we have invested in, and created, the vast American middle class…

Hillary Clinton thinks all countries have rich people, but America has a vast middle class because of government “investment.” She is ignorant of economic history. In feudal times there were rich people and poor people with little in between. The middle class grew as a result of capitalism replacing feudalism. The less government intervention there is, the more opportunity there is for poor people and middle class people to become rich people.

And what I hear from the administration is not hope, but fear. And it is something that is un-American.

Hillary Clinton thinks that more government is hope and less government is fear and un-American.

During the debate on climate change, that we finally got onto the floor thanks to Senators McCain and Lieberman, although we were only given three hours to debate climate change, I was struck by the pessimism and the fatalism from the other side. This was a problem that they either didn't believe existed, or if it existed, would somehow fix itself at the appropriate time, somewhere in the future. That has never been America's attitude. And when I was speaking on the floor that day, I said, you know, I can't believe what I'm hearing. There are, I suppose, still a few people left somewhere who believe that climate change is not a problem, but the vast scientific established opinion is that it is, and we should go about dealing with it now. And guess what? We can make money and create jobs if we do. That's the kind of can-do spirit that I was raised with, that I believe in. And it's that loss of spirit, as much as the loss of jobs, that deeply troubles me.

Setting aside her dubious claims for global warming, she thinks massive new regulations on the economy are in the “can-do spirit” of America. Me, I equate the can-do spirit with individualism, but Hillary Clinton equates it with statism and collectivism.

…we also have a chance to begin to reverse this sense of futility and fatalism that I don't think belongs in the American political scene or in the American psyche.

Hillary Clinton equates less government (also known as “freedom”) with futility and fatalism.

And once again we can not only make the American dream strong, but restore the strength to the words "made in America,"…

Hillary Clinton thinks the government is necessary to put strength back in the words “made in America.” Free individuals working in a free economy apparently lead to weakness in the words “made in America.”

Do you see what she is trying to do in this speech? She is equating the positive American sense of life that is a heritage of Enlightenment individualism with big government. She uses America's can-do spirit, which developed when America was a free country and when Americans were expected to be self-reliant, to defend the one thing that is destroying that spirit -- the welfare state! How's that for an example of the parasitic nature of evil?


Could there be a more twisted and perverse view of America than Hillary Clinton’s? The woman is a nightmare.

And you know what? If John McCain is the Republican candidate for President in ’08, I will vote for the Democrat nightmare. Remember, John McCain has exhorted Americans to “sacrifice for a cause greater than self-interest.” He wrote, “Public service is a virtue, and national service should one day be a rite of passage for young Americans.” John McCain wants every young person to do service to the nation (also known as “slavery”).

What fun we will have in 2008 arguing over who is the lesser of two fascists.

My guess is that McCain will demolish Clinton in the biggest landslide since Reagan’s 1984 trouncing of Mondale, not because of either candidate’s ideas but because of Hillary’s sour personality. She is a cold, unlikable woman. Even when she smiles she seems to be bristling with barely contained anger. She will not appeal to the uninformed voters. I mean the girls who watch Oprah and natter about Brad and Angelina and Jennifer and Vince. I mean the boys who look up from their bongs in late October to mumble, “Dude, what’s all this I hear about an election?” So we’ll end up with President McCain.

This country is headed for some deep shit.

UPDATE: Slight revision. I write a long post like this, then in the shower I think, "I know what I should have written!"

1 comment:

EdMcGon said...

I agree with your analysis up to the McCain vs. Clinton part. McCain only wants to enslave our young people. Clinton wants to enslave ALL of us.

In terms of relative damage, McCain is the lesser of two evils. Fortunately, there is no guaranty that either of them will be the nominees.