Clinton Can’t Distinguish Democrat From Socialist
If it walks like a socialist and talks like a socialist…
For at least one question, Chris Matthews lived up to the name of his show on MSNBC, “Hardball with Chris Matthews.” When interviewing Hillary Clinton Tuesday, he asked her to define the difference between Democrat and socialist. She couldn’t, beyond saying that no, she wasn’t one. “I can tell you what I am,” she replied. “I’m a progressive Democrat who likes to get things done, and who believes that we are better off in this country when we’re trying to solve problems together, getting people to work together.” Matthews asked the same question of Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz in July. She, too, could not give a satisfactory answer.
This is dangerous for Clinton and establishment Democrats. Not only can she not draw a sharp distinction between herself and self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders, but the lack of explanation as to why she isn’t socialist will cost her votes, as 50% of the U.S. population will not vote for a socialist, according to Gallup. If it walks like a socialist and talks like a socialist… This leads us to conclude that the Democrat Party is filled with DINOs — Democrats (people who advocate democracy) in name only — and a sinister ideology has replaced the party’s old ideals.
“Not only is there little distinction between Soviet and German socialist systems of the 20th century,” Mark Alexander wrote in an essay about the “new” Democrat Party, “but there is no consequential distinction between Marxist Socialism, Nationalist Socialism, or the most recent incarnation of this beast, Democratic Socialism. The objective of socialism by any name, is to replace Rule of Law with the rule of men, and the terminus of this transformation is tyranny.”
Start a conversation using these share links: