On Feb. 2, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Con. Res. 9—a resolution “denouncing the horrors of socialism.”
The vote was 327–86, with every Republican and 109 Democrats in favor. Are you feeling safer now? Less threatened? Less worried about the direction of Uncle Sam’s Big Government policies? Of course not. The vote was symbolic. It was an attempt by Republicans to make their Democratic/progressive/socialist colleagues squirm a little. But don’t expect it to change how any members of Congress vote on upcoming proposals.
What can we make of the fact that 86 Democratic members of Congress voted against a denunciation of socialism? Those of us citizens who, such as Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.), who sponsored the resolution, and most of those who voted for it, understand and acknowledge how destructive socialism has been may be tempted to ask a simple question: Are those representatives who refrained from condemning socialism ignorant or evil? Are they somehow blind to the overwhelmingly voluminous historical evidence of socialism’s grim and deadly consequences? Or do they callously believe that the end justifies the means and, in the spirit of Maximilien Robespierre, that you have to break some eggs to make an omelet?
Actually, there’s a third possible explanation that could explain a “no” vote on the resolution: democracy. We’ve all seen the polls showing that huge numbers of Americans favor socialism. It could be, then, that some of the 86 representatives who voted against the resolution don’t personally believe in socialism but believe that a majority of the people they represent do favor it, and so they set aside their personal position and bowed to the will of their constituents.
I suspect that the 86 representatives were more honest than some of those who voted for the resolution. The voting pattern of almost every Democratic member of Congress is socialistic in tendency, and the 86 “nays” aren’t afraid of being labeled as socialists. Some of the “ayes,” however, are hypocrites. They may claim that they aren’t out-and-out socialists, and, in a technical sense—that is, according to a dictionary definition of socialism—they may not (at least, not yet) be. They can claim that they aren’t socialists because they aren’t (yet, at least) calling for the outright nationalization of all key industries. However, these characters are but playing with words. The salient fact that identifies them as socialistic in tendency is that they always want more government control of economic activity, more control over who gets to have how much wealth, and more control over people’s lives (all in the name of creating a more kind and just society, of course).
Furthermore, when Khanna declared, “We say, ‘Let us give everyone health care’; Republicans say, ‘We can’t do that, look at how many people Pol Pot killed!’” he’s too clever by half. He’s openly stating that Democrats believe in socialized health care, and then he mocks opposition to socialized medicine by tossing in a red herring about the murderous Pol Pot. But socialized medicine is bad medicine.
Now let’s look at the Republicans who voted unanimously to denounce socialism. OK, fine, you don’t advocate socialism, but do you believe in free markets or in the multiplicity of government economic interventions that comprise our present mixed economy? You claim to believe in less government control over economic activity than Democrats/progressives/socialists, but where do you propose to cut spending to balance the budget?
And once that goal is achieved (if it ever is) what government agencies would you dissolve? Are there any cabinet-level departments you would consider eliminating? Do we need a Department of Energy to help us produce energy? Does there need to be a Department of Education in Washington to tell helpless, benighted people in the heartland how to educate their children? What about the Department of Agriculture? Would food production collapse if bureaucrats quit telling farmers, “Do this. Don’t do that”? Do the workers and employers in our country need a Department of Labor to manage their relations, or can they work it out on their own within the context of state laws guaranteeing rights and outlawing abuses? There are others, but the common denominator in all these cases is whether the federal government needs to manage wide swaths of economic activity.
In short, is government management superior to free markets?
If you socialism-despising Republicans don’t believe in abolishing federal bureaucracies completely, are you willing to trim back the enormous web of federal regulations imposed and enforced by bureaucracies? What about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? Yes, we need to police harmful pollutants. But the excesses of the EPA are at times egregious, such as putting people in jail for making ponds on their own land. In fact, the EPA may be the focal point of the most costly policy blunder in U.S. history—the quixotic attempt to curb or eliminate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Here’s a suggestion for you who say you don’t believe in suffocating, impoverishing top-down government planning: Pass legislation stating that, for purposes of federal law and regulation, CO2 shall not be treated as a pollutant. No pollutant could ever be as benign and beneficial as CO2—the base of our food chain (nourishing plants, which, in turn, nourish animals and humans), a gas that has greened our planet, extended growing seasons, enhanced crop yields, and helped Earth climb out of the harsh rigors of the Little Ice Age into much more people-friendly temperatures.
H. Con. Res. 9 was a cute and hopefully instructive political maneuver. But the real question is: How will the GOP majority in the House try to govern? The rhetoric is against socialism. Now it’s time for action.
