|
One of the beautiful things about socialism (and many other non-functional political programs) is that (a) they don't work, and (b) their failure to work gives their supporters more arguments for having more such programs. One recent example (kind thanks to John McCain and George W Bush) is campaign finance reform, which was supposed to remove the influence of the rich from politics, and increase the influence of the average citizen. Instead, the effect has been to allow mega-billionaires like George Soros to flood the political system (largely without public disclosure), and simultaneously make sure that normal people and up have their contributions strictly limited. Yet, when asked what to do about this, McCain said we simply needed more such measures. Socialism works largely the same way. Welfare created generations trapped in poverty, despair, and crime, all of which resulted (of course) in ever more demands for ... you guessed it ... welfare. (Many thanks to Gingrich and Clinton for ending that awful cycle of suffering!) Even now, some (Chomsky) look at the USSR and say it was never "Communist", and are eager to try it again. Of course, the need to redistribute resources and restructure society necessitates a powerful government, which inevitably doesn't want to be subject to the same rules. That failure is not a bug, it's a feature. Nonie Darwish argues persuasively that the desire for Sharia has the same wonderful effect:
I thought it was all due to a Jewish plot. Add your two cents...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once. |