 |
| Biden Harris, Getty images |
President Joe Biden is due to surrender the White House this November either to his present Vice President, Kamala Harris, or to former President Donald Trump.
Biden was persuaded to leave office by a delegation of Democrat Party leaders, among them
former Speaker of the US House Nancy Pelosi and Democrat leader in the U.S.
Senate Chuck Schumer. There is some indication that Biden did not relinquish
power willingly at first. Eventually, he was brought round and “passed the
torch” to Harris, who most gratefully accepted it on behalf of a future
generation clambering for “a new way forward.”
Immediately, Harris was beset with a problem: A “new way
forward” can only be a way that is in important respects different than the
Biden way. Putting light between herself and Biden would necessarily entail a
break with the four years of the Biden Administration and, derivatively, the
eight years of the Barack Obama administration. Both Obama and Biden were
neo-progressives. That is to say, both presidents were not averse to an
undemocratic accumulation of power in the executive department, government
though executive order, and an acknowledgement expressed in deeds that states
and municipalities must give way to the superior force majeure exercised by the federal government.
Harris, most political observers will acknowledge, has been
very light on policy substance during her campaign for the presidency.
Platforms in which Harris might have been compelled to lay out in some detail
her policy prescriptions both foreign and domestic – i.e. a primary fight for
the Democrat Party presidential spot, a written platform presented to the
assembled delegates to the Democrat Party Nominating Convention, and close examination
by the nation’s media of Harris’ policy prescriptions – were avoided by Harris,
the current heir in a growing line of Democrat neo-progressives committed to “change
for change’s sake.”
For his part, Biden just now is poised to begin barnstorming
the nation in an attempt to secure his political legacy. That legacy, we are
told, will include a stout defense of what his Republican opponents have derisively
called “Bidenomics.” And neo-progressivism itself is a derivative of
neo-Marxism, a subversion of nearly all settled cultural expressions, including
those dubbed by G.K. Chesterton as “the littler platoons of democracy” –
church, family and academia – along lines advanced by Paulo Freire in his book The
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the third most cited book in the social
sciences.
Biden the barnstormer has a high hill ahead of him. Most
Americans know the difference between trickle down poverty, the chief product
of the authoritarian state, and a liberating free market system, the sworn
enemy of Marx’s false prophets. Just now in Venezuela, the heroic Maria Corina Machado is attempting
to overthrow an authoritarian state in favor of a democracy for Venezuelans,
but current communist-socialist-Stalinist Nicolás Maduro has stolen the
election fair and square and is now in the process of jailing his political
opponents. Machado’s valiant push for democracy has found little resonance
among left of center politicians in the United States who claim to be the
Pretorian Guard of democracy. Venezuela is the socialist state in full flower,
and no one should be surprised that it resembles to a T the socialist-fascist
state of Joseph Stalin.
Anat Shenker-Osorio, the founder of ASO Communications, a group
that focuses on political messaging, has perfectly described Bidenomics: “Bidenomics’
is about building from the bottom up and the middle out, as opposed to
‘Reaganomics’ — trickle down, or the notion that if you feed the hungry beast
of the billionaires, somehow their, you know, magical excess is going to rain
down upon us.”
Bidenomics, in other words, is central government socialist
centered economics with a placid smile plastered on its face, the triumph of
slick Soros financed propaganda over the day to day reality that most Americans
experience as a violent slap in the face: insupportable grocery prices; sky
high borrowing rates that push home buying away from middle class newly
married, hopefully, Americans; inflationary dollars, owing mostly to
improvident government spending, that force the producers of goods and services
to increase the costs of their products, along with complex regulations and a
vast network of ambiguous laws that drive up costs as well.
As to trickledown economics, wealth and prosperity have been
trickling up from a creative free market system to the poor and the
middle classes for centuries, a process easily reversed by communist and fascist
administrative overlords like Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini who, when asked to
define fascism in a single sentence, memorably said: “Everything in the state,
nothing outside the state, nothing above the state.”
That is not Reaganism, conservatism or free market
economics. It was Abe Lincoln who provided the most convincing answer to the
Marx’s economic views, detailed here in “Lincoln Alive: His Relevance To Modern
Politics.”
Marx, the author along with Friedrich Engels of a book on
slavery and the Civil War, wrote to Lincoln who read and referred his letter to
a member of his cabinet. But Lincoln himself later addresses the central
premise of Marxism, the fixity of economic classes: “Labor is the superior of
capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights,
which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that
there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital
producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of
community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few
avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor
for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor
have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the
whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the
Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their
families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in
their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and
asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on
the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle
their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also
buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct
class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.”
This liberating, upwardly mobile mixed class can only be
destroyed by a revisionist Marxism in which political power, authority and
economic creativity rests with a centralized ruling class of elite
administrative overlords. Under careful examination, the “new way forward”
touted by the Harris administration is the old way that led in Roman times to
the utter destruction of the Roman Republic coincident with the rise of the Roman
Caesars.
Comments