Someone – not a fan of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s political redoubt – has given us a brief preview of DSA’s political and cultural platform.
And here it is:
An oxymoron is an impossible combination of terms, such as
“square circle” or “democrat socialist.”
We know from history that socialism, once matured, is both
anti-democratic and anti-republican. The official title of the Soviet Union was
“the union of soviet socialistic republics.” In fact, the union was a political
construct that demanded at the point of a sword or a grueling stretch in Joseph
Stalin’s Gulag Archipelago absolute and unquestioned compliance with an
overbearing command state. The central command was Stalin and his Pretorian
Guard, or Hitler and his black shirts, ruthlessly anti-democratic and
anti-republican by nature.
The official shortened title of Germany’s post Weimar
Republic under Adolf Hitler was the Nazi Party, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP, translated
into English as the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, originally a term
of abuse.
Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, the head of the Italian
Fascist Party, were all socialists before they became loathsome dictators.
Even an inattentive reader will notice that the abolition of
the US Senate and its replacement by proportional representation and rank
choice voting in all elections may be for most Americans a bridge too far. So
too would be the replacement of the presidential office and the US Supreme
Court by an executive and judiciary chose by the DSA’s rump national
legislature. Defunding the Department of War, a blanket refusal to engage in
any foreign war and the closing of all overseas military bases would simply
leave the future of the United States to the mercy of rapacious socialist
states elsewhere. Refashioning police department staff into social workers
would leave American citizens at the mercy of criminals who, under the auspices
of the DSA state, could not be
restrained by re-programed police or prisons that had been abolished. And the
public ownership of corporations would turn every free enterprise into a state directed
entity that is, like the US Post Office, expensive and occasionally inefficient
but as eternal as sin and misgovernment.
These are not bad ideas, because they are not ideas at all,
but rather an anarchist’s vision of utopia – a perpetual dystopian war of all
upon all. The DSA, it should be obvious to any democrat with half a brain, is
an anarchist organization whose preeminence would result in the end of ordered
liberty as conceived by the architects of our nation’s founding to insure for all the liberty under law that
has sustained the American experiment in self-government for 250 years.
It’s time to begin asking the right questions. Where is the
sustained opposition by Connecticut Democrat Party senators to a serious effort
to abolish the U.S. Senate? What cat has got the tongues of Connecticut U.S.
Senators Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy? Do Blumenthal and Murphy support the
public ownership of private corporations? Do they support the abolition of
prisons and of incarceration as a deterrent to criminal activity? Blumenthal is
nominally Jewish. Should Jerusalem become the capital of a Palestinian state?
Should the U.S Constitution be redrafted to create a democratic socialist
republic, when history plainly teaches us that mature socialistic states are
incompatible with republics? Should the seven members of Connecticut’s U. S.
Congressional Delegation, all Democrats, support the ending of sanctions on
socialist Cuba, socialist Venezuela and socialist Iran?
Is there any Democrat politician in Connecticut who still
reveres democracy and seriously believes that the Iranian Shia Pretorian Guard that
has pledged its lives, its fortune and its sacred honor to the destruction of
both the United States and Israel will permit itself to be bound by paper
agreements fashioned in Washington DC and Jerusalem, the capital of Israel?
Is there, peeking out of dark corners in The Constitution
State, a Democrat politician with the fortitude and courage of President Harry
Truman, among the first leading politicians
of a democratic state to recognize Israel as a sister democratic state –
against, it should be noted, the advice of prominent members of his own
cabinet? Truman, very much underrated, never forgot he was a Democrat.
On October 24, Truman issued the following “Statement by the President on Israel”:
THE REPUBLICAN
candidate for President has seen fit to release a statement with reference to
Palestine. This statement is in the form of a letter dated October 22, 1948, 10
days before the election.
I had hoped our
foreign affairs could continue to be handled on a non-partisan basis without
being injected into the presidential campaign. The Republican candidate's
statement, however, makes it necessary for me to reiterate my own position with
respect to Palestine…
So that everyone may
be familiar with my position, I set out here the Democratic platform on Israel:
"President
Truman, by granting immediate recognition to Israel, led the world in extending
friendship and welcome to a people who have long sought and justly deserve
freedom and independence.
"We pledge full
recognition to the State of Israel. We affirm our pride that the United States,
under the leadership of President Truman, played a leading role in the adoption
of the resolution of November 29, 1947, by the United Nations General Assembly
for the creation of a Jewish state.
"We approve the
claims of the State of Israel to the boundaries set forth in the United Nations'
resolution of November 29 and consider that modifications thereof should be
made only if fully acceptable to the State of Israel.
"We look forward
to the admission of the State of Israel to the United Nations and its full
participation in the international community of nations. We pledge appropriate
aid to the State of Israel in developing its economy and resources.
"We favor the
revision of the arms embargo to accord to the State of Israel the right of
self-defense. We pledge ourselves to work for the modification of any
resolution of the United Nations to the extent that it may prevent any such
revision.
"We continue to
support, within the framework of the United Nations, the internationalization
of Jerusalem and the protection of the holy places in Palestine."
It should be acknowledged from such clear declarations that
Truman was not used to speaking with a forked tongue. The same cannot be said
of present day Democrat politicians who lack the courage to denounce the DSA’s
absurd pretentions.
Comments