Kimberley Strassel is a columnist and a member of the editorial board at The Wall Street Journal, where she has worked since 1994. That is her picture, above. By clicking this link, you can read what Strassel has to say about the dangers of "Democratic Socialism." The link will take you to an excerpt from the text of a talk Strassel gave, as printed in "Imprimis." "Imprimis" is a free monthly speech digest published by Hillsdale College, which is where Strassel gave her speech. You can see a video of Strassel's presentation by clicking here.
The video, in particular, shows Strassel demeaning and denigrating the Democratic Party, and "Socialism." In the written text, a number of her most snarky comments are omitted, but make no mistake, Strassel identifies "Socialism" as a clear and present danger to our democratic way of life. I don't think Strassel uses the term "imminent threat," but that is the sense of what she's saying.
I, personally, think that "-isms" are almost always unhelpful in understanding both what exists already, and what may be "possible." Strassel's speech is "name-calling," pure and simple, and she implies that if anyone mentions the word "socialism" (as, for instance, by someone who says that he or she is a "democratic" socialist) what is really being suggested is the confiscation of all private property, and the institution of a totalitarian state. I don't say that Strassel's speech exactly equates "democratic socialism" with the confiscation of all private property and the institution of a totalitarian regime, but that is the basic idea she is presenting. She is warning young students at Hillsdale College to stay away from people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Strassel makes no comment noting the deficiencies of our current political situation, in which our Constitution is being bypassed by an autocratic president, unchecked by our elected officials in Congress.
I am not a big fan of "-isms," as I just said - and that includes "Democratic Socialism." What I am in favor of is a government of, by, and for the people. Do I think it would be good for us to decide to increase taxes on those who have plenty ("trillionaires," for instance), and then use those tax proceeds to benefit everyone, and improve housing, healthcare, and educational opportunities for those who don't currently have access to housing, healthcare, and education?
Yes. I do think that would be a good thing. But how to get there? That's what "politics" is supposed to be all about. I don't care about the "label." I'm interested in the substantive proposals - and the practicality and desirability of those proposals. Confiscating all private property? Nope! I'm not for that. I'm no "Democratic Socialist," if that is what that label is supposed to mean.
"Self-government," though? I am in favor of that, and that means that "we, the people" need to understand, and then exercise, our political power, by winning elections and then insisting and insuring that our elected officials are governing as promised to those who cast their votes for those candidates who won. The upcoming election may, or may not, change the current composition of Congress, in terms of "party" alignment. Whatever those newly-elected officials choose to call themselves, the important thing is what they will work to accomplish.
Compromise will be required!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0IaOh35N10
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!