Skip to content

Silly or sane socialism?

September 22, 2010

the NRO online just had a blurb go by on an article where Jay Nordlinger asserts that the Obama administration and much of the Democratic party is likely ‘socialist’ in leaning if you compare them to European politicians – and manages to do it without implying a forked tail, horns and a pitchfork go with the title

That was refreshing.

My question on the socialism aims were never a judgement on whether socialism  was ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or evil. The question is more fundamental.

  1. How’re you going to pay for that?
  2. How do those countries “pay for that?”
  3. Are the conditions that allow socialism to continue being funded long term in place in the USA?

Without making any judgement of what’s fair or unfair, or moral or immoral, you really can look at what is funding the European social democracies to determine how applicable they would be running here, given associated policies & environmental factors.

It’s not unlike determining how similar the weather, soil, light and rain conditions are between two different sites before transplanting a tree. You don’t see many Ponderosa pines in Texas, but you see many in central Oregon. Pine trees only grow in climates that match their native environment, or else they wither up & die.

Going back to an earlier post – “Will that be cash, check, or fossil fuels?” I asked these questions over a year ago

Many of the economies in discussion who offer better social services and appear more “fair” to the average progressive have green parties, but are happy to sell bad nasty fossil fuels to everyone else. They’re also happy to sell equipment and technology that could help tyrannical governments spy on, incarcerate and persecute more of their own populations.

This is where the environmental conditions seem to break down in attempting to transplant the European model to the USA.

We might not be completely cognizant and consistent on human rights – but just using 1 recent example:  Google gets called out when they acquiese to the PRC, and rewarded in the press when they do not.

We might not be completely sold on climate science, but our policies are designed to limit all access to our natural resources.  That means we not only refuse to tap and sell the resources to increase revenues to pay for other things – we also tax our own use of someone else’s resources (which presumably have to be imported to get  here, neutralizing the benefit of the bill… sorry – I digress…)

In Europe, what is done with the products once Europe is paid for them – well, the answer  seems to be something no one in Europe wants to make a judgement on. 

Many of those products are how the countries fund their system of social democracies.

Love it or hate it – Europe has in place a political base and political parties who accept the necessary consequences of the system they desire.

The question is whether this administration heads there with their eyes open, strategically – or end up in that place out of necessity – clueless and surprised because “hope” doesn’t sustain itself

Cross posted at Cassy’s site…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: