Thursday, 23 September 2010

Americans’ Tolerance for Communism

Written by 

A while back I wrote a piece about the resurgence of the Red Menace in various parts of the world. The Communist Party in Japan is rapidly winning converts; and Karl Marx’s birthplace in Germany has become a tourist attraction, with the financial crisis convincing many that his ideas deserve a second look (in reality, this is the umpteenth look, and the results of previous looks have never looked good). And, unfortunately, it isn’t just overseas that communism finds a home.

While “tolerance” is considered a great virtue today, it can actually be a sin. Understand that tolerance implies a negative; that is, we wouldn’t tolerate a fine car or a delectable meal; we relish those things. But we might have to tolerate severe weather or a bad cold, as shelter or a cure may be unavailable. Yet when a negative can be remedied but we tolerate it nonetheless, we’ve descended into a very intolerable state.

Thus is the case with communism in the United States. While the average American rightly shows no tolerance for neo-Nazis or skinheads, Marxists are a different story. Case in point: the Christine O’Donnell-Chris Coons Senate race in Delaware.

While the media are having a field day talking about O’Donnell’s advocacy of sexual purity (which I addressed in this piece) and her brief teenage dalliance with witchcraft, Coons’ conscious decision to embrace darkness raises nary an effete-media eyebrow. I speak of his Marxism.

When Coons was a junior in college, he wrote a piece entitled “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.” In it he explains how a trip to Kenya completed his transformation from “conservative” (certainly small “c”) to communist, as he came to despise the free-market system and economic class disparities. Note that, unlike O’Donnell — who was exposed to witchcraft inadvertently after falling in with the wrong crowd — Coons made a conscious decision to reject the American way and adopt the ideology of the 20th century’s worst tyrants.

What does this fact say about Americans who would consider even for a moment voting for Coons? It says their judgment has been corrupted to a point where they cannot distinguish between good and evil. I don’t care if Christine O’Donnell is a doll with a string in her back that you pull to make her talk; I don’t care if she flies around on a broom in the moonlight.

You don’t vote for someone who even has Marxism on his breath. You don’t even consider it.

Now, some will say it’s unfair to hold Coons accountable for something written 25 years ago when he was 21. In response to this I’ll reprint two points I made here:

First, the ability to profile properly is always necessary when choosing candidates, as the information you will have on them is always limited and managed. A politician certainly wouldn't admit to harboring Marxist passions; thus, in keeping with the maxim "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," the best yardstick we have for measuring Coons is actions and pronouncements taken/made before he had a vested interest in lying about his aims. (And wouldn't we instinctively apply this when judging someone with a neo-Nazi or KKK history? Would we give David Duke the benefit of the doubt many would give Coons?) Second, when profiling, know this: People who embrace communism but then truly renounce it generally become passionate rightists. Those who remain leftists usually haven't renounced anything but honesty about their intentions.

Unfortunately, knowing a man’s intentions isn’t enough when people are indifferent to them. And there is no doubt that many Americans have been inured to communist leanings. When it was learned that Barack Obama — who, it appears, was a member of the socialist “New Party” in Chicago in the 1990s — had an alliance with avowed “small c communist” Bill Ayers and was mentored in his youth by communist Frank Marshall Davis, he should have been relegated to street-side community agitation. Instead, owing to a fawning media and fooled (and, in many cases, foolish) voters, he was placed in a position in which he could appoint communists and their sympathizers to high positions.

And appoint them he did. There was former “Green Jobs Czar” and self-proclaimed communist Van Jones; former communications director Anita Dunn, who said that Mao Tse-Tung was one of her “two favorite philosophers”; “Manufacturing Czar” Ron Bloom, who said in a speech, “We agree with Mao”; and “Global Warming Czar” Carol Browner, who was until recently listed as a leader of the socialist organization “Commission for a Sustainable World Society” (note that, in classical Marxism, socialism is but a transitional phase between free markets and communism). Wow, I wonder how all these “czars” feel about having the title of a man who was shot by one of their heroes, Vladimir Lenin.

Then there are the appointees who have been smart enough not to wear their banners openly, people such as Obama’s advisor and confidante, Valerie Jarrett; Kevin Jennings of “Fistgate” fame; Mr. Censor-the-Internet Cass Sunstein; forced sterilization proponent John Holdren; “Diversity Czar” and fan of Venezuelan “free-speech” model Mark Lloyd; and healthcare-rationing social engineer Dr. Donald Berwick. And how many others lurk in the shadows unidentified? If you wait to find out, it may be too late. Communists don’t strip the mask and bare the fangs until their boot is on your neck.

And their influence in government is apparent. Just consider how the following elements of the Communist Party of the USA’s platform have already been advanced:

1. Immediate Relief

1.1 A moratorium on foreclosures and evictions.

1.2 Reset mortgages so payments are affordable.

. . . 1.4 Extend unemployment compensation, increase payments and eligibility.

1.5 Increase food stamps, WIC, children's health ins., low income energy assistance.

1.6 Assist state and local governments.

1.7 Fund "ready-to-go" infrastructure projects.

[Hat tip: Randall Hoven at American Thinker.]

Then consider how Americans face steep tax increases, and impending inflation due to the rapid printing of our fiat currency, and ponder that Lenin once advised: “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

Once upon a time in America, a declared Marxist was a pariah in his community. Now one leads in the polls in Delaware. And why isn’t such a damning admission the disqualifying factor a Nazi past would be? It’s simple: After years of favorable treatment by the media, academia, and Hollywood — entities that have suppressed the truth about the communist holocaust of a hundred million innocents, the destruction of economies and squelching of man’s spirit — people have to scratch their heads choosing between a Marxist and a patriot. Christine O’Donnell may not be the perfect candidate, but she doesn’t have to be. You don’t vote for a Marxist — ever.

The voices of the tens of millions who died in Soviet gulags, Red Chinese death camps, and on Cambodia’s killing fields cry out for justice. Yet this justice is denied. Not only did Joseph Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot die natural deaths, but now millions of Americans dishonor the victims’ memories by electing to office the inheritors of the toxic ideology in whose name they were slain. This is what we’ve degenerated to — and it’s shameful.

English statesman Edmund Burke once famously said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The real tragedy here is not that we have communists in high places; it is that many Americans don’t really seem to care. Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him?

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media