The Folly of the Anti-Inequality Crusaders
The current crop of Democratic primary candidates are anti-inequality crusaders, but they lack Constitutional justification for any of their Marxist redistributive schemes: mainly because they just don't care about the Constitution.
It is funny how in the world of American politics, it is so difficult to tell who is winning the real philosophical battles. Take a look at the movements that were spawned in the wake of first Obama, and then Trump.
When Obama won handily in 2008, against the lackluster campaign of Arizona Senator John McCain, he enjoyed Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. This prompted a fierce grassroots backlash from the heartland: people concerned that Obama was unforgivably leading America down the path of socialism. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney ran a respectable campaign, but also ended up losing in 2012, by a comfortable margin.
In 2016, Trump’s election spawned another massive grassroots reaction. As Trump shocked the entire world, losing the popular vote by 3 million, but racking up a healthy margin of victory in the Electoral College, half of America seethed. Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, who won 43% of the vote in the Democratic Primary, and carried dozens of states, was now the leader of a new phenomenon: the “Justice Democrats.” Downright contemptuous of business interests, Wall Streets, banks and financial institutions, and eager to dramatically ramp up the size and scope of government, the new breed of social justice warriors found a champion in Bernie, and later other figures like Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rourke.
At the heart of their struggle is a ferocious and relentless battle against their great perceived enemy: inequality.
Here is the Warren/Sanders/O’Rourke worldview in a nutshell, and tell me if you agree or disagree. “Some people have more than others. That is inherently unfair. If my friends and I in Washington DC just took a lot more of your money and redistributed in fairly…then we could solve all of society’s problems!”
News to Warren and Sanders: there is always going to be inequality. Some people want to be investment bankers, neurosurgeons, or computer scientists. Other people want to work at their local supermarket, movie theater, or big box retailer. Some people have IQs of 130, and others have IQs of 70. Some people are driven and focused…others are lazy and incompetent. This might hurt the feelings of some snowflakes like Elizabeth Warren, but it’s the truth.
I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of Warren/Sanders audio over the past decade. Not once…not one damn time, have I ever heard them encourage anyone to take responsibility for their own life or action. It is always someone else’s fault…and their teeming minions are praised for whining and bitching about their problems and blaming everyone else for their lack of success. That is surely a miserable way to go through life…and a sure way to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What is frightening is that Elizabeth Warren now appears to have eclipsed Bernie Sanders in the “terrible ideas that have already been proven historical failures” category.
Elizabeth Warren is without question or doubt a Marxist who believes in redistribution of wealth. It is at the heart of everything from her “Accountable Capitalism Act” to her childcare plan, to her student loan forgiveness plan…all funded by higher taxes, and designed to get more low-functioning individuals into public sector unions and on the public payroll where they can never be fired, earn wages (that we pay for) that are double or triple what would be justified by the free market, and enjoy benefits that no private sector company could afford to pay.
She nonchalantly proposes to “break up big tech” and warns of the grave danger Silicon Valley poses to the American public. I’d be interested in hearing the Constitutional justification for her plans. Warren wants to break them up and then treat them like a public utility. How exactly would that work? The government is going to expropriate private property (a la Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro) and then oh-so-generously redistribute that wealth to a grateful American public?
Why am I entitled to a share in the profits of “Big Tech”? I have never in my life believed that I am entitled to anyone else’s money, merely because they have more than I do.
Now, legions of Sanders/Warren enthusiasts have been deluded into believing that their problems stem from the fact that they didn’t get more of billionaires’ money.
Warren wants to expropriate private property and redistribute the wealth of various unfavored political and economic classes; totalitarian governance at its finest.
Breaking up big tech would be one more big government boondoggle. Next Warren will propose breaking up our big energy companies, our big banks, our big pharmaceutical companies, our big transportation companies…and “sharing” the wealth.
This is called nationalization…it’s been tried hundreds of times over the course of modern history. State-run companies are a failure. I am happy to have trained business experts (not government appointed stooges) running our private industry, and enjoying the fruits of their labor.
Here is a message for the Bernie Bros and Warren fans who are so wowed by her “We’ve got a plan for that” campaign: the success you will enjoy in life depends upon you and your actions…not on how much money you can get from entrepreneurs, business owners, and billionaires.
It’s a lesson the “Justice Democrats” are in sore need of learning.