Speaking at small rally in Las Vegas before the upcoming GOP debate, presidential candidate Marco Rubio continued the grand illusion of national-level politics: liberals are silly leftists and conservatives are upstanding free market warriors. Firing shots at Democrats, he contrasted the GOP field, saying, “We could have nine people on that stage [and] not a single one is a socialist.”
While the audience applauded that campaign-grade one-liner, I had a hearty lol. It was for this very delusion that I wrote God versus Socialism. Yes, I was hard on the left in that book, but the place where the argument really matters is with the various forms of Socialism practiced, protected, and cherished by alleged free-market conservatives as well. If we don’t clean our own house, there will be no hope at all. And we can only clean our own house if we start being honest about the dirt.
The truth is just the opposite of what Rubio claims. The truth is that he and all the other GOP candidates are absolutely Socialist. They are Socialists because they believe and support socialistic policies that involve massive wealth transfer, massive taxation, and massive government interventions in banking, finance, and foreign wars. They are so deeply involved in appropriation and transfer by government coercion that the claim not to be Socialists is laughable by any objective measurement.
Candidates like Rubio can only maintain the conservative delusion by comparing themselves to other Socialists like Bernie Sanders who happen to be a little further down the road than they are.
In fact, Rubio is so Socialist he has actually criticized Democrats on certain issues for not wanting to do as much as he does to preserve Socialist programs.
For example, among the most Socialistic policies in American life are Social Security and Medicare (Obamacare is nothing more than a general extension of Medicare. Why the one is blasted by conservatives as “Socialist” and the other is demanded to be protected is beyond me—except that I understand the delusion.) I have shown in Restoring America how the program was never intended as a savings program, but was always by admission a wealth-transfer system—that is, Socialism.
Rubio’s take on this Socialistic policy is that it must continue and continue to be protected as a wealth transfer system into perpetuity. Mind you, he realizes the program is a failure and that it cannot continue under the current conditions, but instead of a free market solution that would privatize retirement saving, Rubio argues to increase the retirement age and to increase the transfer element of the program. His website says he wants to “Reduce the growth in benefits for upper-income seniors while strengthening the program for lower-income seniors.” That’s an increase in the element of wealth transfer in the system.
FDR or LBJ could not have hidden the word “Socialism” beneath more campaign-friendly speech themselves.
Yet Rubio blasts the left for not wanting to save Social Security like he does. He writes, “I have no doubt I will be attacked by those on the left who believe we should do nothing to save Social Security. As someone whose mother counts on Social Security, I would never stand behind a proposal that would hurt my mother or seniors like her.”
I am not sure he recognizes the irony of out-flanking the left to the left.
And the truth is that every one of the GOP candidates says virtually the same thing. Not one of them has the guts to call the system “Socialism” and demand instead a free-market solution. Therefore, contrary to Rubio’s proclamation, not one of those one that stage is not a Socialist.
Now, this is just one issue. Imagine if we were to make a similar analysis of GOP proposals for government involvement in education, corporate welfare, energy, military spending, foreign interventions, and various other areas. In every such case, the fact that leftists are a bit more Socialist is irrelevant. The GOP platform is Socialist, the candidates’ proposals are almost all Socialist, and therefore they are Socialists.
If they’re secretly not, however, and instead their Socialistic proposals are merely political pragmatism to get into office, then they are simply dishonest. How can we then trust them with anything else? When conservatives later expect them actually to be conservative, we can be sure we’ll be treated to more left-leaning pragmatism and told to bide our time once again.
Now, I am not saying to vote or not, or for whom or whom not. I am simply saying that these candidates owe it to you to be honest about their positions, and that you should be critical enough to see through such a transparent falsehood regarding “Socialism.” If we cannot be honest with ourselves about something so objective and simple, we’ll find it impossible to make progress in the ways it’s really needed.
What we need is bold, honest, biblical conservatism, and candidates who say it openly from day one. What? A person like that cannot get elected at the national level? Then our problems are so great they need solutions other than national politics. What we need then is prayer and revival. What we need is for pulpits to ring once again with the biblical doctrines of civil righteousness, self-government, private property, free markets, sound money, and if necessary, interposition, nullification, and secession.
I am telling you: until we return to these things, the focus on a national political savior is as wrong-headed as Aaron giving the people their golden calf, or the people of Israel clamoring for their Saul. Good luck with that, because it will mean certain judgment on our nation.
One thing is sure, Socialism and lies will not be solved by more Socialism and lies.