Sunday, March 22, 2009

Winners and Losers

I was flipping through the radio dial a couple of weeks ago when I had to stop at Rush Limbaugh. He was calling our economic crisis Obama’s Recession. As if Obama was responsible for this mess.

It occurred to me that folks that take Rush seriously would certainly never be happy if everyone had economic security, adequate healthcare, and education. I’m sure this would be perceived as Socialism.

With this view there’s no way we can all be winners. Being a winner is defined by the losers. My group is worthy because yours is not. This applies to almost all social groups; Socio-economic, genetic, and especially religious.

If you’re a little more sensitive you might look at this as the haves vs. the have nots.

I’m not sure why Socialism became so frightening when clearly Fascism is the most obvious alternative. This idea should be even more frightening.

The conservatives are great at striking fear with certain words, even changing their meaning. Look at the word liberal.


From Merriam-Webster:



\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\




Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascisbundle & fasces fasces



1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control


The social, fiscal and military conservatism they preach is exactly the “Big Government” they rail against.

Photo courtesy

No comments: