Obama Isn't the Problem

People on the left, aka the progressives, liberals, Democrats, whatever you choose to call them, hate being called socialists. The only thing they hate more is when someone like Rush Limbaugh calls them socialists. Rush went a step further this week and actually said, "the country could survive four more years of Obama... but I don't believe the country can survive in a country full of people that would re-elect him."

Since at least forty percent of the country is currently polling for Obama, this is a sweeping indictment. One must wonder what particular view is so troubling to Rush Limbaugh (and many of the rest of us.) I believe it is simply this: Obama's vision for America is a socialist revolution. The policies his administration and the Democrats in Congress are advancing are blatantly socialist in nature. They openly admit they are patterned after the European (socialist) model. The policies they present will take our country in a different direction from its last two centuries.

Since many people today are convinced there is no difference between the two major political parties in America, it might be instructive to outline the distinguishing economic features. The typical Democrat believes that the answer to every problem is a government program. Conservatives see individual initiative and personal preference as the keys to making things work. Progressives think the government should create equality of outcomes (read wealth redistribution) whereas Republicans typically strive for equal opportunity for all. The liberals want to give the poor a hand out, their opponents prefer to offer a hand up.

Over the years, many Christians have recommended socialism as more in line with Biblical teaching. They believe the socialist model is more compassionate, more loving perhaps. They think it better serves the underprivileged. There are two problems with this. First, the New Testament nowhere suggests that human government is to be God's financial instrument to help the poor. Biblically speaking, stewardship is a personal matter; helping the poor is a church issue, not a state issue. Secondly, in actual practice, the poor fare better in capitalist systems than in socialist economies. Check out Cuba, the former Soviet Union and her satellites or the communist dictatorships in the far east and you will find far more people in poverty on a per capita basis than in any society with a free market capital economy.

Having said that, it must be emphasized that neither system is without flaws. Admittedly, capitalists have abused the underprivileged at times. The problem is not with the system in either case, but with human nature. In a sinless world, any system would work to the benefit of all citizens. But this is not a sinless world. All other things being equal, the freedom granted in a capitalist economy has historically led to better conditions for the majority of its people.

I believe this is what Rush meant when he said we can't survive as a country if a majority want to re-elect Obama. That choice means that a majority want a socialist country. These people apparently are unaware that no socialist society has been able to succeed long-term. The melt-down in Greece and Spain and the impending collapse of the entire European Economic Community should put to rest any thought that socialism works. Sooner or later, it breaks down. America has over 200 years of success with a capitalist system; Europe is coming to the end of her socialist experiment after only 60 years.

That alone highlights the choice we are making this election cycle, although there are numerous other social issues that distinguish the parties as well. But if you take the narrow view as James Carville said a few cycles ago, "It's the economy, stupid," then we have a simple choice: we can stay on the economic train that has a long track record of success, or we can jump on the one that is heading over a cliff. Problem solved.