Forward to the past 5

Thomas Sowell writes at Investor’s Business Daily:

The political slogan “Forward” served Barack Obama well during this year’s election campaign. It said that he was for going forward, while Republicans were for “going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess in the first place.”

It was great political rhetoric and great political theater. Moreover, the Republicans did virtually nothing to challenge its shaky assumptions with a few hard facts that could have made those assumptions collapse like a house of cards.

The Republicans did virtually nothing to challenge any of the assumptions – or the lies, or the deeds – of  the Democrats.

More is involved than this year’s political battles. The word “forward” has been a political battle cry on the left for more than a century. It has been almost as widely used as the left’s other favorite word, “equality,” which goes back more than two centuries.

The seductive notion of economic equality has appealed to many people. The pilgrims started out with the idea of equal sharing. The colony of Georgia began with very similar ideas. In the Midwest, Britain’s Robert Owen — who coined the term “socialism” — set up colonies based on communal living and economic equality.

What these idealistic experiments all had in common was that they failed.

They learned the hard way that people would not do as much for the common good as they would do for their own good. The pilgrims nearly starved learning that lesson. But they learned it. Land that had been common property was turned into private property, which produced a lot more food.

Similar experiments were tried on a larger scale in other countries around the world. In the biggest of these experiments — the Soviet Union under Stalin and Communist China under Mao — people literally starved to death by the millions.

In the Soviet Union, at least 6 million people starved to death in the 1930s, in a country with some of the most fertile land on the continent of Europe, a country that had once been a major exporter of food. In China, tens of millions of people starved to death under Mao.

Despite what the left seems to believe, private property rights do not exist simply for the sake of people who own property. Americans who do not own a single acre of land have abundant food available because land is still private property in the United States, even though the left is doing its best to restrict property rights in both the countryside and in the cities.

The other big feature of the egalitarian left is promotion of a huge inequality of power, while deploring economic inequality.

It is no coincidence that those who are going ballistic over the economic inequality between the top 1% or 2% and the rest of us are promoting a far more dangerous concentration of political power in Washington — where far less than 1% of the population increasingly tell 300 million Americans what they can and cannot do, on everything from their light bulbs and toilets to their medical care.

This movement in the direction of central planning, under the name of “forward,” is in fact going back to a system that has failed in countries around the world — under both democratic and dictatorial governments and among peoples of virtually every race, color, creed and nationality.

It is one thing when conservative leaders like Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in Britain declared central planning a failure. But what really puts the nails in the coffin is that, before the end of the 20th century, both socialist and communist governments around the world began abandoning central planning.

India and China are the biggest examples. In both countries, cutbacks on government control of the economy were followed by dramatically increased economic growth rates, lifting millions of people out of poverty in both countries. …

We are going “forward” to a repeatedly failed past, following a charismatic leader, after a 20th century in which charismatic leaders led countries into unprecedented catastrophes.

Obama, however weak his grasp of economic theory, must surely have noticed that socialism sooner or later brings nations to a drab and stagnant equality of misery. Even he must have some notion that centrally planned economies do no good for the wealth, the might, or the progress of the country. What’s hard ( it seems) for many voters  to accept, though it’s manifestly the case, is that Obama does not want a prosperous America. He wants power. He wants to be a central planner, not preside over a prosperous, strong, innovative nation. For him socialism is just the ticket.

Carrying high his banner with “Forward!” blazoned on it, he leads America back to the past – not its own past, but via welfare Greece, Mao’s China, Soviet Russia … towards (look! – millions of Americans trailing after him, their eyes bright with expectation) … towards just such another graveyard of hope. 

  • liz

    Yes, “that’s the ticket!” Obama is alot like the psychopathic liar on SNL who made this phrase his motto. He may not believe his own lies, but he knows they work.
    Like I said before, I feel like we are now trapped in an insane asylum that has been taken over by the dangerous psychopaths.
    Why do the Republicans go along with this insane travesty as if it were business as usual?

    • Paresh

      You’re talking about Jon Luvitz right? He actually came out a few months ago against Obama and all his “the rich should pay their fair share” BS. Why are you calling Luvitz a psycho? (This is a serious question. I actually don’t know that much about him. I do think he is funny though).

      Sowell is awesome. This article hits the nail on the head, just as so many of his other articles do.

      I am just shocked that in a capitalist nation such as ours, how we could vote in a president that states “I am always struck by people who think, ‘I must be successful because I’m so smart.’ There are a lot of smart people out there.” (slightly paraphrased) To me, this is one of the most insidious, anti-capitalism statements anyone can make, and it came from our PRESIDENT!!! What makes it so insidious is how it never openly attacks capitalism, and the economically uninformed (practically all liberals) just buy into it.

      If the Repubs are EVER going to clean up Obama’s mess, they have to stop letting the religious wackos control the primaries, and get a smart middle-of-the-road candidate who understands capitalism and isn’t a flag-waving Christian. Don’t know if that is possible though.

      There is a great article by Jonah Goldberg on called “The GOP – not a club for Christians.” It’s a good read that makes this case a lot better than I would hope to.–not-a-club-for-christians-n1464614/page/full/

      • liz

        Paresh – I don’t remember the guys name, just the skit. I didn’t mean that he himself is a psycho, just the character he played in the skit. And he was a pathological lier, not psychopathic (sorry, got those two terms mixed up). It was a funny skit, of course Obama’s not, at all.
        Amazing to hear that an SNL actor would come out against him!
        You’re right about the insidiousness of Obama’s anti-capitalism, that he makes statements like that and no-one bats an eye!!
        Which is what makes me feel, ever since his re-election (heck, even his first election) that I’ve woken up and found myself in the funny-farm, being treated for the paranoid delusion that our President is a marxist dictator. (“yes, yes, now take your pill, everything is going to be just fine! We have a wonderful president! hahahahah!!”)
        Thanks for the link!

        • Paresh

          Liz wrote: “I didn’t mean that he himself is a psycho, just the character he played in the skit. ”

          Haha! I totally misread your statement! I thought you were trashing Luvitz himself, not the character! Yeah, it was surprising to see an SNL actor come out against Obama. I think in the interview he even stated that he supported Obama in 2008. He was really against how Obama kept acting like rich people weren’t paying enough in taxes.

          I’m totally with you on feeling like you just woke up on the funny-farm. I am regularly shocked when having discussions with my lib friends. I just am dumbfounded by their complete lack of fundamental understanding of capitalism. These are pretty intelligent, well educated folks too.

          • liz

            Yes, ironic that the perception of capitalists as old rich white guys was (very insidiously) perpetrated by old white guys like Bill Ayers, who is also probably rich, as is Obama and all the rest of them.