home > archive > 2003 > this article
The struggle for America's soul
By Henry Lamb
Tom Daschle's disarming demeanor in front of a TV camera presents the image of a patriot, struggling to save America from the clutches of right-wing ideologues hell-bent on overtaking the judiciary - and the nation. He has no problem distorting the clear instruction of the Constitution by refusing to allow an up-or-down vote on the President's nominations for the federal judiciary.
The ongoing battle over judicial appointments is the most visible element of the much deeper and broader struggle for the very soul of America.
Tom Daschle represents a segment of the population that has a vision of America's future that is dramatically different from the vision advanced by the Bush administration. Daschle – the temporary leader of the deposed Democratic Party – is struggling mightily to regain the dominance enjoyed during the Clinton/Gore era. Bush – the temporary leader of the now-dominant Republican Party – is struggling just as hard to retain his party's dominance, at least through another four-year term. America's future is bigger, and more important, than any individual. But it is through individuals, and their political parties, that the very soul of our nation is revealed.
There is no doubt that our nation was founded upon the principles of freedom, set forth in our founding documents. There is no doubt that for the first century, those principles guided our nation's policies. There is no doubt that during the 20th century, those principles became fuzzy, and began to erode, as new principles of self-governance emerged.
The struggle for America's soul is not simply between the Democrats and Republicans. It goes much deeper. At the very core of the conflict, the struggle is between capitalism and collectivism. There are endless shades of variation between these two extremes, but at the core, the conflict is between capitalism and collectivism.
It is a short distance between speeches delivered by Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and some of the Democratic presidential candidates, to the policies advanced by the Progressive Caucus, or the Democratic Socialists of America, or, for that matter, the World Socialist Web Site, or the International Socialist Organization. All these policies are consolidated in Agenda 21, and in the Commission on Global Government's report, Our Global Neighborhood.
Democrats do not call themselves socialists, and, indeed, some are not. Even a casual reading, however, of the policies and proposals advanced by the socialists of the world, reveals that the policies advanced by the Democrats are hand-in-glove with the socialists. Consider Hillary's universal health care fiasco, Kennedy's cradle-to-grave, state-run education proposals, Gephardt's government-mandated health-care-for-tax-break proposal, and all the government-controlled land use policies. The more one reads the global socialist agenda, the easier it is to see how completely this philosophy has permeated the Democratic Party in the United States.
Many people who feel pangs of social responsibility, or a genuine desire to "protect" the environment, tend to identify with the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, without really considering all the consequences that accompany government control. When government does control completely – which is the goal of socialism – it's too late for people to change their minds.
Were it not for the wisdom of our founders, who fashioned the electoral college, Bush would not be in the White House. Hillary Clinton was one of the first to call for the abolition of the electoral college, which would transform America into a democracy, instead of the republic which our founders constructed.
Socialists love to use the word "democracy" to describe their system of governance, because it suggests that the people have a say in policy development. Truth is, however, that in a socialist democracy, the only people who have a say in policy development are those people that the socialist leaders choose to have a say.
So it is with the "collaborative decision process," instituted by Clinton's President's Council on Sustainable Development, and still used throughout government agencies to "build consensus" among pre-selected people to endorse pre-determined policy goals.
Americans who don't want this nation to fall victim to socialist policies and procedures, are typically referred to as right-wing extremists, greedy capitalists, anti-environmental polluters, and most recently, as war-mongers. These are the people who are constantly the targets of the Democrats' verbal assaults. These are the folks who rejected Al Gore, and unseated Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle from their Congressional majority leadership positions.
Americans who don't want this nation to fall victim to socialist policies and procedures are rising, organizing, strategizing, and mobilizing to win the struggle for America's soul.
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.