By Douglas V. Gibbs
Communism: Socialism realized; theory of social organization based on principles of common ownership, ownership and possessions being ascribed to the community as a whole, or to the state. System in which all economic and social activity was once controlled by a dominant government (oligarchy), administered by the ruling elite of a single, and self-perpetuating, political party, but faded away as society came to accept the resulting utopia. While some countries have been labeled as “communist”, true communism has never existed in human society, and is considered as being impossible to achieve due to the complexities of human nature.
Socialism: A political system in which the government owns the means of production. An economic system in which good and services are provided through a central system of cooperative and/or government ownership rather than through competition and a free market system. Most often characterized as an oligarchy.
Liberalism: The definition of liberalism has changed over the years. The basic definition of liberalism provides that it is a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint based on free competition and a self-regulating market; a theory in politics emphasizing individualism and autonomy. In modern times the definition has altered to include considering government as a crucial instrument for achieving equality, and recognizing the essential goodness of the human race. In order to pursue the agenda of the modern definition of liberalism, advocates support popular control of government, while denying that the aim is to ultimately establish an oligarchy.
Progressivism: Philosophy that views progress as seeking change in approaches to solving economic, social, and other problems, often through government sponsored programs. Associated with democracy, and transition from a republic to an oligarchy.
Democrats don’t believe that socialism is a loser with most American voters. They simply believe it is too early to pull the trigger…The statist drive to control education is the drive to control the children. If the children are taught that Liberty is to be avoided, or that the American System of Liberty is somehow evil or oppressive, the children will follow the dogma of socialism and secularism for life.
What you just read was taken directly from my book, An American Promise of Liberty published in 2019. What is going on is not new, nor was it unexpected. The Democrats, for over a hundred years, have been infiltrated by Communists, but adopted the Fabian style of spreading socialism: slowly, incrementally, and from within.
The strategy has always been a gradual takeover. On page 47 of the book, The Unseen Hand by A. Ralph Epperson, the author explains, “The strategy is to promise the American people one thing and to deliver another. Never make it appear that you, the candidate, are supporting socialism or are a Socialist, even though the platforms you will support after your election are indeed socialist in nature. And you must never deliver so much socialism that the American people will discover the exact nature of the game and remove you from office.”
The news outlets are telling us that after supporting the entrance of the Democratic Socialists into the Democratic Party, many of the establishment Democrats are experiencing cold feet and are not sure they like the socialists invading their party. In truth, they are more than happy to have the socialists in their party because many of them are socialists as well – they just believe that the DSA candidates are pushing the socialist line too early. If they go full socialism too early in the game, as Epperson stated, the American people will reject it and push the other way.
There is no socialist wing of the party. There is no big tent. They are all socialists. But, some of them have gotten louder and more organized than ever before and it has those who have been playing the long game nervous that the move is too early. If the louder democratic socialists keep winning primaries, it will create a situation where the Democrats may lose what they’ve been building for a century. The new wave of younger socialists are not buying into the Fabian style of incremental infiltration and influence. They don’t possess the patience of the old school communists who began the process and have steadily moved it forward one incremental step at a time. The younger generation communists are not afraid to exclaim their version of the truth out loud and they have put the whole plan in jeopardy, and that is why the old guard is trying to put out the fire. The problem is, if they sound too much like they support the radically loud democratic socialists, they lose moderate and swing voters. If they cut off the DSA and turn their back on the new wave of socialist demands, the activists and their supporters who have been helping the democratic socialists win the primaries will stay home in November – so they have to distance themselves sort-of, kind of like they are straddling the fence, in a manner that does not accept the madness in the eyes of one part of their party, but makes it look like they don’t reject them wholesale, either.
Hence, the claim that the party has a “big tent.”
There is no big tent. The Establishment’s strategy is to hang on to the power they built any way they can, and survive the crisis to fight another day. Their aim is to stop the bleeding, but also not lose the ground they worked so hard to accomplish. They can’t allow the DSA to destroy all they’ve worked for, or allow President Trump to stop their progress by taking advantage of the situation caused by the young socialists. And to be honest, calling it a Big Tent is all they have right now, and all they can do to stop the bleeding – all because some of their comrades have lost the patience embedded by the Fabians.
The damage is marching ruthlessly through the Democratic Party, and despite their Big Tent argument, their strategy is not working as they hoped. They are drowning in fundraising problems and they are sitting on a pile of committee debt. They can’t lose Congress, and let their arch-enemy in the White House who is on to them get his way. They have to call themselves a “big tent” party, hope that they can survive enough to gain control of at least one House of Congress, ride the storm, and deal with the petulant commies once they get things under control and get Trump out of office.
The evidence that they are not a Big Tent party is as clear as can be. If they really were a Big Tent party, they wouldn’t be talking about ousting Senator John Fetterman for refusing to march in lockstep with the socialists in his party, be they Israel-hating open border socialists, or Israel-hating open border progressives.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
