H. Con. Res. 9 Changes Nothing

Commentary

On Feb. 2, the 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, like Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.) who sponsored the resolution and most of those who voted for the resolution, 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 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 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 who voted against the resolution were more honest than some of those who voted for it. 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,” though, 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, more control over people’s lives (all in the name of creating a more kind and just society, of course).

“Socialism” itself has variants, the primary one being the fascism/Nazism (National Socialist) policies of Mussolini and Hitler. In such systems, the government doesn’t formally nationalize businesses, but by laws and regulations directs the activities of businesses. Thus, when Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) tries to mock Republicans and H. Con. Res. 9 by saying, “No Democrat believes there should be government gas stations or government car companies,” he’s being disingenuous. He and his Big Government colleagues may be more like fascist than socialist at present, because they aren’t advocating a de jure nationalization of those businesses. It’s clear, though, that (in the name of climate change) they want de facto control. They want someday to eliminate gas stations. They want American car companies to ramp up production of electric vehicles rather than let consumer demand shape automobile production.

Furthermore, when Khanna declares, “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. If you look at our federal debt, you realize how decades of Uncle Sam pouring massive amounts of money into health care has caused prices for health care to balloon and been a major contributor to the national debt. That government spending, by driving prices higher, made health care less affordable, thereby creating a need to increase federal spending on welfare even more so that poorer Americans can access it. I’m perfectly willing to concede that Khanna isn’t another Pol Pot. However, the history of socialism shows how often it is that when socialism becomes established and government power expands, there are sociopathic individuals who grab the reins of power and turn into murderous monsters. Read Chapter 10 of F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom,” “Why the Worst Get on Top.”

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 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.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.