General Discussion

We have had 26 years, or slightly more than half of them, with a Republican in the White House, along with some serious “enemies, domestic” working against us in 2000 and 2016. I’d say the Democrats have done rather well under duress during that time, especially considering that half of their time was spent doing damage control from preceding Republican administrations.

While socialism may have noble-sounding principles, the devil is always in the details. Every time a regime calling itself “socialist” has taken power, the people have suffered under an authoritarian, confiscatory elitist regime that almost never consented to being voted out of power. There was always an attached label, just like Bush II’s “compassionate (ha-ha) conservatism.” There were Soviet Socialists, National Socialists, Unity Socialists (East Germany’s S.E. D.), and whatever it is Chávez called his mess in Venezeula. Now, we are introduced with yet another label, and expected to swallow whole the notion that “but this time, they REALLY mean it!”!

Even when Mitterand won the election in France in 1981, his government used to send terror units to small shops all over Paris with orders to impose fines for imagined offenses (i.e., don’t come back to the office without money), bigger taxes, including the wealth tax, although that one was removed on fine art (the socialist finance minister’s father was a big dealer in fine art). Needless to say, they had to make quite a few concessions to stay in power.

I still remember Miguel de Unamuno’s speech to the Spanish Fascists in 1936: “Ustedes vencerán….pero no convencerán.” You people will conquer, …but you will not convince.” I obviously hope the nominees win their congressional races, but I am not convinced—not by their tactics, and not of their ultimate goals, whatever they really are. No me convencen.