The Patriot Post® · FDR, Socialism and the 'NeoComs'

The New Democrat Party

By Mark Alexander · ·

“We must make our election between economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude.” –Thomas Jefferson (1816)

Winston Churchill observed, “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.”

You’re no doubt familiar with the label “Neo-Conservatives,” and its shortened version, “NeoCons,” to describe the post Ronald Reagan era Republicans who advocate a more globalist and interventionist policies.

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.”

The NeoComs are 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.

Under Barack Obama’s regime, neo-coms emerged from their rat holes in the form of the “Occupy” whatever movement. They have re-emerged as the so-called “antifa movement” of self-proclaimed anti-fascist fascists.

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 Woodrow Wilson, and most notably, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the “New Deal” programs he implemented under cover of the Great Depression. (What really ended the Great Depression? Hint it was not the New Deal.)

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.

Regarding FDR’s failed statist “New Deal” policies, let’s take a quick stroll down History Lane …

FDR’s attempt to [tax, spend and regulate]( the nation out of the Great Depression between 1933 and 1936 largely failed with each new initiative. While his Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Civil Works Administration (CWA) provided labor jobs and sustenance to people willing to work, this didn’t end the Depression. His Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) provided support for farmers, the unemployed, youth, and the elderly, but did not end the Depression.

FDR also ended the “gold standard” backing of currency in an effort to stop deflation, which resulting in the fiat paper currency we use today, and Congress forced the implementation of bank reform by way of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which did improve banking confidence but, combined with all the other measures, did little to lift the nation’s economy out of Depression.

In his words, he defined his failed centralized government folly as “bold, persistent experimentation,” adding, “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another.” That’s crisis management by trial and error.

Anticipating Supreme Court rulings against many of his patently unconstitutional policies, FDR even attempted to pack the Supreme Court by expanding the number of SCOTUS justices, who would outnumber jurists who support [Rule of Law](, and comport with the Left’s [rule of men]( tyranny by judicial diktat. Fortunately Congress reined in his effort ensure his extra-constitutional government programs would not be challenged by the SCOTUS.

After he’d [purchased his re-election]( with massive government expansion and wealth redistribution schemes, the nation was hit with the “Roosevelt Depression” of 1937. Clearly his first-term “3 Rs” policies – government intervention to provide relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy, and reform of the financial system – had failed, and unemployment then *climbed* to 22%. So FDR responded by wildly expanding government deficit spending from 1% of GDP to almost 5% of GDP, and that superficially stabilized the economy. But the simple fact is, the end of the Great Depression came with the massive spending increases we undertook to win World War II, and the job creation that accompanied our wartime economy.

The net result of FDR’s “policy solutions,” however, was an irrevocable expansion of government bureaucracies defined by his “[New Bill of Rights](” in 1944, and a political realignment which gave the Democratic Party majorities in Congress and a stranglehold on the White House for seven of the nine presidential terms from 1933 to 1969. And, in the 1960’s Lyndon Johnson’s so-called “[Great Society](” programs proved to be yet another case study in failed socialist policies.

Ominously, he said of his statist expansion, “We have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people’s government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people.”

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. 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 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.

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 Obama, much as the Great Depression had led to the election of FDR.

FDR’s response to collapsing confidence in our financial system in 1933 was similar to [Barack Obama’s]( response in 2009 – similar in that both Democrat presidents proposed socialist “[policy solutions](” which, in fact, served only to extend the economic misery. In the case of Obama, his solutions were in response to the 2008 financial crisis which was, ironically but *not* coincidentally, the direct result of prior [Democrat statist regulatory policies]( related to mortgage markets.

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.”

Today’s Democrat Party socialists are little more than autocratic puppets FDR referenced.

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 Democrat Party fueled by the redistribution of wealth, and Barack Hussein Obama’s NeoCom regime, which poses the greatest threat to Liberty since our Founding.