Alexander's Column

The 'NeoComs'

The New Democrat Party

By Mark Alexander · Dec. 13, 2012
“We must make our election between economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude.” –Thomas Jefferson (1816)

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. … Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.” –Winston Churchill

There is a new and unfortunate entry for the political lexicon, a fitting label for the latest ideological iteration of Marxists in America: “Neo-Communists” or the abbreviated version, “NeoComs.”

You’re no doubt familiar with the label “Neo-Conservatives,” and its shortened version, “NeoCons,” to describe conservatives who have adapted to more interventionist foreign policies promoting democracy, and who support open trade policies. “Neo” differentiates these conservatives from the isolationist and non-interventionist conservatism of the 1930s – until the attack on Pearl Harbor drew us into war with Japan and Germany.

At the other end of the political spectrum from the Ronald Reagan NeoCons are the NeoComs – modern-day socialists, “useful idiots” – who have risen, in the last two decades, to dominate the once-noble Democrat Party. They have modified old Marxist doctrines and adapted them to current political platforms and policies using leftist propaganda more compatible with contemporary culture. Chief among these is the Democrat Party’s tried and true “divide and conquer” disparity rhetoric, which foments discontent and division based on income, race, ethnicity, gender, education, occupation, etc.

However, bull pucky by any other name is still bull pucky. Democrat Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged.

The objective of today’s NeoComs is, as you by now know, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” in order to “peacefully transition” from our constitutional republic and its free-enterprise economy to a socialist republic with a state-organized and regulated economy.

Ideological adherents of the American Communist Party made few political gains under that banner in the last century because the label “communist” was and remains “distasteful” to most Americans. Thus, NeoComs have infested the Democrat Party and are using it as cover for socialist policy implementation.

The political genes of the current cadres of NeoComs establish them as the direct descendants of the statist policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the programs he implemented under cover of the Great Depression.

Roosevelt, like most of today’s wealthy liberal protagonists, was an “inheritance-welfare liberal” – raised in a dysfunctional home and dependent on his financial inheritance rather than that essential spirit of self-reliance, which forms the core of American Liberty. Consequently, the “dependence ethos” irrevocably shaped by FDR’s privileged upbringing is virtually indistinguishable from the dependence ethos of those who have been raised or inculcated with belief that they are reliant upon welfare handouts from the state.

Though markedly dissimilar in terms of their political power, the underlying difference between inheritance liberals and welfare liberals is, the former depend on investment and trust distributions while the latter depend on government redistributions. But they both support socialist political and economic agendas based on Marxist collectivism.

Endeavoring to transform our Republic into a socialist state, FDR set about to replace our authentic Constitution with the so-called “living constitution” by way of judicial diktat, thereby subordinating the Rule of Law to the will of his administration. Anticipating Supreme Court rulings against many of his patently unconstitutional policies, which he later arrogantly outlined in his “New Bill of Rights,” FDR attempted to expand the number of justices on the High Court, thereby allowing him to flood the bench with his nominees in order to win majority rulings.

Despite his failed attempt to pack the High Court, over the course of FDR’s three full terms, he infested American politics with socialist programs and policies, and brought the nation perilously close to being ruled by an avowed Marxist, his vice president, Henry Wallace.

Prior to 2008, the closest the U.S. had gotten to an openly socialist president was after FDR’s then-vice president, John Garner, broke with Roosevelt over FDR’s effort to pack the court. In 1940, Roosevelt tapped his secretary of agriculture, Henry Wallace, to replace Garner as his new running mate. Wallace’s allegiance to Marxist doctrine was well established. However, near the end of World War II, Roosevelt feared that he could not get re-elected to a fourth term with an open Communist on the ticket, so he tapped the more moderate Harry Truman and demoted Wallace to Secretary of Commerce – where he could further his Marxist agenda.

FDR, of course, died in office just a month into his fourth term. But had he retained Wallace instead of opting for Truman, America would have had its first communist president by succession.

Shortly after becoming president, Truman fired Wallace because of his affinity for the USSR. Wallace would later unsuccessfully challenge Truman in 1948 under the thinly veiled socialist Progressive Party front, with the endorsement of the American Communist Party.

The end of World War II largely capped FDR’s “New Deal” socialist expansion of the state until Lyndon Johnson’s progressive “Great Society” platform heralded a plethora of new statist programs and policies. Ironically, another war, Vietnam, capped Johnson’s socialist expansionism, but not the enormous price tag of the welfare and entitlement programs established by FDR and Johnson.

It was not until the sharp economic downturn of the Great Recession in September 2008 that the next socialist surge of statist intervention would be implemented. That severe recession, the result of Democrat-sponsored statist intervention policies which led to the collapse of real estate values, and cascaded into the near collapse of the U.S. banking system, also led to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, much as the Great Depression had led to the election of FDR.

In fact, Obama’s progressive re-election mantra, “Forward,” was inspired either by the concluding words of FDR’s “Bill of Rights”: “[W]e must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights….”, or by Mao Zedong’s collectivist “Great Leap Forward.” Either case would constitute a political distinction without a difference. And a prophetic footnote: FDR also wrote in his Bill of Rights, “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

Like Roosevelt, Obama was raised in a dysfunctional family, but unlike FDR, Obama inherited a socialist political legacy rather than wealth. However, neither Roosevelt nor Obama “let a serious crisis go to waste.”

Obama, the NeoCom-in-Chief and our first openly socialist president, was elected and re-elected on his progressive “fair share” rhetoric, which he often frames as “spreading the wealth around.” That, of course, is merely a new riff on an old FDR proclamation: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.” However, that “American principle” is merely a paraphrase of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, in which he declared, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Obama’s political storm troopers are led by the largest subgroup of congressional Democrats, the 76 declared members of his Congressional Progressive Caucus, who have made “progressive taxation” the top priority of their “redistributive justice” agenda.

Rep. Paul Ryan properly summed up Obama’s progressive agenda as “a dull journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.”

Obama and his American Communist Party-endorsed NeoComs are crafting their progressive economic policies using the subtle Cloward-Piven model, a socialist strategy that outlines how to overload the national entitlement delivery system, what we call the ObamaNation Plantation, in order to generate a severe economic crisis and ultimately break the back of free enterprise. Obama is using so-called “stimulus and bailout” plans (including his most recent “Fiscal Bluff”), ObamaCare, cap-n-trade, international climate change treaties, and the like, to take our country to the edge of that precipice.

Sometimes, however, the NeoCom agenda is not so subtle, as was the case this week when Jeffrey Immelt, an ardent Obama supporter who also chairs Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said of Red China's economy, “The one thing that actually works, state-run communism, may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.”

NeoComs outside the U.S. are even less subtle.

In a recent newspaper column in “Pravda,” the old Soviet propaganda rag (“The Truth”) now published by post-Soviet era conscripts of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, a popular writer, Xavier Lerma, had this observation on our most recent presidential election: “The Communists have won in America with Obama. … Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society.”

Lerma criticized his fellow Russians for electing Vladimir Putin who, Lerma laments, “sounded like Ronald Reagan” in a recent speech Putin gave on the Russian economy.

Putin said: “We are reducing taxes on production. We are optimizing state expenses. We must avoid excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state. Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit and accumulation of the national debt are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game. During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself. We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success.”

Lerma concluded, “Who could ever [have] imagined anyone so willing to destroy [capitalism] like Obama, much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don’t they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist president.”

Indeed, who could have imagined?

Our great nation has retreated a long way from the American Revolution, rooted in a three-pence tax on a pound of tea, to the populist Sixteenth Amendment and its 1913 provision “to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,” to the current debt crisis. The consequence of unmitigated taxing and spending is the rise of the Socialist Democratic Party fueled by the redistribution of wealth, and Barack Hussein Obama’s NeoCom regime, which poses the greatest threat to Liberty since our Founding.


View all comments


SemperFi in Kalifornia said:

And a prophetic footnote: FDR also wrote in his Bill of Rights, "People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Roger Brooks in Richmond, NH said:

At my advanced age, I am finally getting around to reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. NedIess to say that it is not only scary, but very timely as well. My sanity is kept by not watching too much Fox News or reading Patriot Post every day. Tell me: how is this all going to end? I am seventy-five and probably won't have bear it too much longer. What about my kids and grandkids? Well, Semper Fi anyway! RNB

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:02 PM

JWH in "The Republic of Texas" replied:

I think there are many people in our age group that ask the same question "what can we do"? It is not clear to me at this point since the main objective of most politicians is to get re-elected. When they lie and deceive at the current level AND the MSM do not call them on it, I am very afraid for the future of this great Republic.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Lynwood in Scottsdale, AZ said:

Mr. Alexander, it's always a treat to read your work. I have just a couple of brief critiques of your otherwise fine effort here.

First, I'm not clear on how you are forwarding the political debate our nation sorely needs to have, by creating your own synonym for Progressivism, "NeoCom."

As you are highly aware, Progressivism has to do with the progressive transformation of our society from the most dynamic free market economy history has ever witnessed, and morphing it into yet another ham-handed statist government for which we can find no successful examples. The goal of Progressivism was and remains to Socialize America from within, without a bullet being fired.

My second point of critique is that you state the "NeoComs" (Progressives) are today's Democrat party. That is true, so far is it goes; but Progressivism is hiding out within the Republican Party as well. It's hard not to think that one of them is sitting on a 'purge list' right now. Let's just guess that Conservative congressmen who are "purged" are probably *not* Progressives!

Mr. Alexander, perhaps you could consider a subsequent post in which you differentiate "NeoComs" from Progressives.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Tony in NJ said:

The USA as we've known it died with the election of the obamination in 2008.
The republican party was entirely useless in protecting our rights as guaranteed in the Constitution. The democraps are true communists determined to destroy the USA. At this point in time the american People MUST take back our country. Every politician in DC must be impeached and removed from office; new elections Must be held-starting with the whitehouse and moving throughout Every elected position in federal government.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:10 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

That's not enough. We also have to dismantle the Administrative State apparatus. Daniel Hannan, who has served as England's delegate to the European Parliament, learned that the EU Parliament is largely meaningless; the bureaucrats control everything and only pay lip service to what the "democratic" body says.

As a start, we need a blanket repeal of the United States Code and all accompanying regulations. Congress needs to start over with the bare Constitution. We need a series of amendments to tighten the peoples' control of the Federal government. Several are suggested below:
1. The power of Congress to obtain revenue to provide for the General Welfare of the United States shall not be construed to mean anything other than providing for the expenses of carrying out the lawful functions of the Congress, the Executive and Judicial authorities elsewhere enumerated in this Constitution.
2. The power of Congress to regulate Commerce between States shall not be construed to extend beyond the actual transfer of goods or services across state boundaries; it shall not extend to possible antecedents or consequences of such transfers.
3. No statute or associated regulation shall be in effect for more than seven years without a review and re-enactment by Congress. This amendment shall not be construed to place a limit on Congressional authority to set shorter terms for expiration or review.
4. The length of the United States Code, whether directly or by reference, shall not exceed one million words or ten million characters, excluding spaces. If an Act of Congress would otherwise cause the length of the United States Code to exceed its maximum, Congress must repeal or shorten a sufficient portion of the Code before the Act can take effect. (Note: I saw this in a science fiction story; I think the credit goes to Robert Heinlein.)

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:12 AM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

Add this to the first paragraph: Likewise, the Federal bureaucracy has accrued tremendous power to itself, even to the point of thwarting explicit intentions of Congress and the President.

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Tony in NJ said:

The USA as we've known it died with the election of the obamination in 2008.
The republican party was entirely useless in protecting our rights as guaranteed in the Constitution. The democraps are true communists determined to destroy the USA. At this point in time the American People MUST take back our country. Every politician in DC must be impeached and removed from office; new elections Must be held-starting with the whitehouse and moving throughout Every elected position in federal government.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:11 PM


Live free or die as the N.H. licence plate suggest.Freedom is one the greatest responsibilities a citizen must nurture and demand of thier politicians to protect. A citizen must understand the meaning of Liberty and whence it springs from. Socialism and Communism does not allow Freedom nor Liberty.Justice based on moral codes can not be allowed.Socialism is the most sophisticated form of slavery the world has known.Socialism is the drug and Communism is the disease. Truth is the cure but only if you care.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Gator Skipper in San Ramon, California said:

Definition of Neo Com, (neo Communist) Many of us who have had the fun of going down bay and joining the Oyster Fry at Sausalito Sailing Club or sending out a scout to Bodega Bay to buy an ice chest full of the Shelled delight, will cringe at the latest news out of Washington. The present administration is doing its best to stop businesses from succeeding to be independent and free to excel and earn a profit … as an example; I draw your attention to a radio station out here (link)

KSFO (a conservative news talker) is a radio station here, who is blowing the lid off the President’s administration and the Department of Interior’s attempt to force the closure of the Bodega Bay Oyster Farm. It is a family owned business that has been operating since before 1900. They are some of the finest sweet meat oysters on the west coast. The guy owning it just happens to be a Republican (yeah I know, Marin County?).

Check out the website for the station and click on the Oyster Farm story before it is taken down. I hope you will write your congressmen and senators and send that out and get all of them, on your list, to protest this infringement on a family business not hurting anyone. The interior department goons are saying; it is not suitable and a natural part of the pristine bay environment…It is PURE Bovine Scat!

The guy is a Business man in a very GREEN business employing about 100 people who will all likely go on some Obama entitlement program because that is all they know and they mostly have lived in the remote village for much of their lives.

Send your letters and phone calls to your congressmen and senators and forward this on to those you think would be interested.


"Live your life in such a way that every morning...when your feet hit the floor...Satan shudders and says..."Oh NO...He's Awake!"

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Jim367 in New York said:

What often gets lost in the rhetoric, both good and bad, is the fact that Marxism never really caught on in America until Darwinism became the established doctrine of origins taught as "fact" in the government school systems. The Theory of Evolution is undoubtedly the foundation upon which modern progressive ideology is based. This includes everything from their pro-death cultural rantings to their economic worldview and the atheistic/religious humanism that is the mantra of liberalism.
Given the vast amount of mounting evidence for a young earth creationist theory, which by the way is why the left targets those like Rubio who espouse it, the only conclusion one can come to is that those on the left refuse to acknowledge the true source of moral/ethical authority.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Fred L Fox in Tucson, AZ said:

Dial up for LOTS of information on this subject (including history thereof. It started in 1923 and came to the US in the'30s. Future posts will have even more...

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Jim367 in New York said:

The left continues to target the foundation of conservative's worldview, while we continue to just shoot down their arguments one by one. Until we begin to relentlessly attack the ideological foundation of the left, i.e., evolution, we fight a losing battle in the lame stream government controlled media.
Destroy the foundation with the facts, and you undermine the whole ideology.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Norm in Indiana said:

Pretty well sums up our current political and financial situation... except Alexander doesn't give enough credit for the countless republicans through the last 50 years who were enablers and did nothing to turn the tide along the way when they could have.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:36 PM

JWH in "The Republic of Texas" replied:

Amen! And it has happened in my lifetime.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Glenn Merriam in Hoover Alabama said:

Today's post is so right on! History, civics, the constitution are no longer taught. How are we to preserve this republic from such an ignorant group of voters? They will soon begin to feel the pain of taxes and regulation that will strangle our economy.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:48 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

If the people are ignorant, educate them! Get your acquaintances interested in learning American history and civics as it should be, not as the neo-com educators wish it to be.

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:20 AM

NavyPilot in Fall River, MA said:

Right on. We can only expect more of the same bull pucky for the next four years. Let's hope that we don't get an unexpected surprise in 2016, when his highness decides that he thinks a third term would be good for the country. God help us all.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

He can't run for a 3rd term. Beware of Hillery. If she runs the Tea Party/GOP if they keep on track as they did last time, we've lost.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 8:19 PM

rpu28 in South Park said:

Seems to me that to avoid the results of 2008 and 2012, Republicans are going to have to recruit some new voters. Given their striking inability to articulate any kind of coherent principles, they must either move closer to the Democrats, the Greens, or the libertarians. I suggest that the latter requires less explaining.

Some of the younger, angrier Republicans are going to have to take over the party with a new agenda emphasizing social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. The new leaders, when asked about wars, tax increases, budget deficits, corporate welfare, etc., must be able to say, "Yeah, we don't do that anymore." When asked about abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc., the new leaders must be able to say, "That's all states' rights stuff - go ask your governor." When asked about Bush's many supposed sins, the new leaders must be able to say, "I think you're confusing us with the Old Republican Party."

The Democrats have figured out how to beat status-quo Republicans every time; we need a change that will excite some new voters.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

Excellent idea. every month over 80,000 Latino's become of voting age/ I suggest you start there for they are a group are highly Conservative. To wind there support, time repackage and update how we view the country for we are truly a melting pot.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Dee Skeets in SF Bay Area said:

There is another type of welfare promoted by the left besides inheritance-welfare, and poverty welfare. The other category is worker-welfare. Do you notice how the Dem agenda is to extort from private industry and its workers, and gives as much of it as possible to civil workers and union workers . . . for as little work as possible? (If people work less, more positions need to be filled, don't you see?)

The left doesn't mind the military, either, as long as they think of it as part of the worker welfare. Of course, some men and women are still proud to join the military with the noble goal to protect our nation. But the leftward selling points for enlistment is the benefits. Free schooling, early retirement, good pension. . . then play the system to get a second civil position, while drawing the first pension. Enlisted people see first-hand the typical government inefficiency and waste. Millions of dollars of good equipment and supplies discarded and destroyed (while the workers actually don't have what they really need) to ensure a bigger budget for the next year, enlisted people required to use expensive, military-approved services (for even the smallest needs, like washing clothes!) that produce poor results. Assignments are often make-work, instead of true productivity.

Regarding civil workers, police and firefighters, alike, will tell you how they are able to *arrange* their hours so that they rack up voluminous overtime, even though normal scheduling would result in very little need for overtime. It's part of the way the game is played. Private industry could never endure such waste. But since it's the government, it's just another excuse to raise taxes, or threaten to "cut services."

Thanks for a thought-provoking article.

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 3:16 PM