Monday, July 23, 2007

Romney's definition of socialism

Mitt Romney makes a telling statement in a feeble attempt to portray Hillary Clinton as a "Marxist." (Anyone to the left of Phil Gramm is a Marxist in right-wing eyes, of course). He says:

Hillary Clinton just gave a speech the other day about her view on the economy. She said it's time to get rid of that (an on-your-own society) and replace that with shared responsibility and we're in-it-together society. That's out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx.

This statement tells you exactly what the difference is between liberalism and conservatism. What Romney is articulating is conservatism in its most heartless, social Darwinist aspect. You're on your own if you're poor, unemployed, homeless, etc.. We have no responsibility whatsover to our fellow Americans. Anyone who thinks we do have a social responsibility to our fellow ciitzens is--heaven help us--a Marxist. (In the same speech Romney goes on to detail the horrors that await us if "socialized medicine" comes to America.)

This should be the key issue in the 2008 elections. It's community v. selfishness. The question is simple: do we owe a responsibility to our fellow Americans or do we live solely for ourselves. Then again, don't listen to me- I'm one of those Marxists who believes in universal health care and is concerned about income inequality.

2 comments:

Baby said...

Ummmm . . .universal health care? How does that help us. Medicare, medicaid, we have enough socialism.

Brooklynn said...

Medicare and Medicaid are hardly universal healthcare systems...these sytems are for the poor and old...what about all of us middle classers who work extra hard just to support such people in the lower ranks. Under a more socialist environment, if done right, the middle class wouldn;t be so left out!