A recent poll revealed six out of ten Democratic primary voters have a high regard for socialism. Forty-three percent of Iowa caucus-goers described themselves as socialist. An ideology that was once considered taboo in the American polity, and is a proven failure time-after-time, has a stranglehold on a once great party.
How could this happen? How can a people be so deceived? One only has to look at Venezuela to witness
the horrors of socialism, or worse, look to Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.
The most likely answer is indoctrination at both secondary
and collegiate education. An associate
professor at Tennessee State University is promulgating an assertion that the U.S.
Constitution is a socialist mandate. Of
course, the only way one can construe such a notion is thru the preamble to the
Constitution.
This so-called professor takes a giant leap of faith
by divining social justice, as understood by socialists, in a paragraph that
was meant as an introduction. Here is a
revealing excerpt in his op-ed:
Third, the
Constitution separates out general welfare from other goals. Blessings of
liberty can only be secured to ourselves and our posterity if market failures
are properly remedied. We need courts to enforce contracts, law and order to
ensure domestic tranquility and some devotion to equality to establish
justice. We cannot achieve “a more perfect union” without some notion of
equality and a sense of social justice. Therefore, the demand for equality
(embedded in the notions of justice and general welfare) is not a socialist war
cry; it is a constitutional mandate.
Nowhere is equality
mentioned in the preamble, or the Constitution itself. The professor’s assertions are patently deceptive
and outright dishonest. The U.S.
Constitution mandates a federalist system in which states and the federal
government have designated roles.
Socialism is highly
centralized without limitations on the power of the general government. The Bill of Rights was a prerequisite for
ratification by the states simply because they feared an out of control entity
would trample on their sovereignty.
The Anti-Federalist
knew there would be those who would bastardize the preamble to implement their ends and justify their means. The pseudonymous writer Brutus
wrote the following:
But it is said, by some
of the advocates of this system, "That the idea that Congress can levy
taxes at pleasure, is false, and the suggestion wholly unsupported: that the
preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of the union, and
the assumption of any power not necessary to establish justice, &c. to
provide for the common defence, &c. will be unconstitutional. Besides, in
the very clause which gives the power of levying duties and taxes, the purposes
to which the money shall be appropriated, are specified, viz. to pay the debts,
and provide for the common defence and general welfare."1 I would ask those, who reason thus, to define
what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common defence and
general welfare? Are these terms definite, and will they be understood in the
same manner, and to apply to the same cases by every one? No one will pretend
they will. It will then be matter of opinion, what tends to the general
welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter. To provide for
the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation
of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be
proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and
both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare; and both sides
may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views. Those who
advocate this new constitution declare, they are influenced by a regard to the
general welfare; those who oppose it, declare they are moved by the same
principle; and I have no doubt but a number on both sides are honest in their
professions; and yet nothing is more certain than this, that to adopt this
constitution, and not to adopt it, cannot both of them be promotive of the
general welfare.
Here is the professor’s conclusion:
Denying democratic
socialism is tantamount to denying the Constitution of the United States.
Denying democratic socialism is as good as denying what our Founding Fathers
set out to accomplish: a more perfect union that embraces general welfare,
justice and the blessings of liberty for all. The call to shun the path of
democratic socialism basically translates into a call to give up the founding
principles of the nation.
If the founding
fathers’ goal were socialism, state governments would have been abolished long
ago and there would have been no attempt to limit the powers of the federal
government. Socialism can only work when the people are subservient to a cabal of social engineers.
Source:
