Select Page

Letter to Trump, How to Cut the Federal Bureaucracy

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Dear President Donald Trump,

The bureaucracy is out of control enlarging itself at every turn. Every political science Intro to Government text has a chapter addressing this problem convincingly showing why the government is unable to stop or even significantly slow this expansion and Ronald Reagan was the only president before you that even tried. The fifties movie “The Blob” starring Steve McQueen comes to mind; an enemy absorbing and devouring people, with an ever enlarging appetite as it did.

The Constitution designates Congress as the only federal rule-making branch of government. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” Article I, Section 1. The choice of the word “all,” was deliberate. There exists no constitutional authority for Congress to delegate this responsibility to any other body. Citizens should be secure in the knowledge that they have three elected officials (their House and Senate members) that have fully read and understand every law or rule placed over them. The Founders made no distinction between laws or rules, as each is a prohibition of some activity.

But decades ago Congress got lazy and started creating organizations to administer and create the details of a law, thus thousands of “little laws” (“regs,” short for regulations) emerged—often giving the law a twist never intended by the original bill.   The Founding Fathers were aware of this practice and listed it in the Declaration of Independence as one of the reasons supporting the revolution from Great Britain, “He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.”

Congress has allowed these “multitudes of new offices,” to essentially decide what the law means. These creations benefit Congress in two ways. Bureaucracies do most of the work—making “little laws”—and this also conveniently leaves Congress with an enemy to combat of their own making. Members love, and get elected by, “bureaucracy bashing.” An example is the 2700 page National Healthcare Bill that created 159 separate organizations to manage, each capable of hundreds of additional rules and regulations. An older example is the Environmental Protection Agency. A prominent housing contractor once told me that one-third of the cost of a new home went to fulfill regulation requirements. “It did not lift a shovel of dirt or pound a single nail.” But it did “harass our People.”

Seemingly there is no way to stop bureaucratic growth, but the growth, like cancer, must be fed by taxes, which “eat out their substance.” But what is obvious to everyone else is seldom so to the enlarging bureaucracy whose new employees become ever more vocal, with a vested interest in its defense, sustainment, and enlargement. Obviously any plan to succeed must have bureaucratic support. “Goliath” must agree to undertake one serious diet or it will never happen.

Some thirty-five years ago such a diet came across my desk authored by F. F. McClatchie. My students since were asked to be the bureaucracy to determine if it would work. At least 90% chose to be laid off. It seems so easy. It has five steps.

One, freeze immediately all federal hiring of new employees. There will be resistance but not enough to stop this step because “their” job is secure. Mr. President, you are to be commended for having implemented this step, please consider the next four.

Two, lay off 10% of all existing employees each year, selecting those to be laid off by lottery. This ensures that the layoffs will be “fair,” that is, the bureaucrats can’t play with the deck. That way, those who are part of the fat are not in charge of cutting the fat. This step will meet serious resistance so must simultaneously be accompanied by step three.

Three, continue to pay the laid-off bureaucrats at their wages as of the layoff date. This would insure their full cooperation. In fact, their full-time vacations would no doubt thrill them. This would save billions of dollars since they would no longer occupy office space or waste paper, to say nothing of working mischief. They could no longer interfere with business, saving countless billions for productive uses. Few will reject this offer but it can’t go on forever, as it is immoral to pay someone for doing nothing.

Four, reduce each laid-off employee’s paycheck by 10% per year. This would ensure that sooner or later he would seek productive employment. He may choose to bank the new salary, or vacation a year or two, before returning to full employment in the private sector. In the meantime, he will spend the money on hobbies, travel, etc., and keep the economy roaring along with no additional tax burden

Fifth, continue this process until the government is operating efficiently at approximately 1/10th the current payroll or less. Those opting not to be laid off could be part of these.

At 20 trillion dollars in debt this nation is close to bankruptcy. We desperately need a solution that works before we bankrupt. President Trump, together with your reduction of bureaucratic regulation by 70%, this plan has the highest probability of any solution suggested of saving us from the bureaucracy blob.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Trump Saves U.S. from the Trans Pacific Partnership

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

For readers who do not understand the international trade deals of the last 25 years, notably NAFTA, GATT and TPP, you will never fully grasp what President Donald J. Trump has just done for the Constitution and against the proponents of globalism. In his first day in office, pulling the United States out of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, he has done more to return us to constitutional integrity and to international free market economics than the last four presidents combined. Space permits our confining ourselves to the threat averted to the Constitution.

International trade deals have historically been a mix of oxymoron’s: Republicans for and Democrats against, with the actual trade deals finalized and implemented by Democrat presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Unions, considered left, and Tea Party folks, considered right, have been consistent opponents, as have constitutionalists. Thus, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul are on the same side, the former yelling in opposition to the TPP, “No more secret trade deals!” And, “No more special deals for multinational corporations!!”—Both accusing Obama of selling us out.

In 2013, the Washington Post was the largest newspaper to print some of the “secret” parts of the TPP observing that by then, after nearly a decade of negotiation and 19 secret meetings, had become a regional government document of a hefty 5,600 pages. “Which when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports” and “26 percent of the world’s trade.” It will be the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region—without the input of a single member of Congress. This in violation of Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that mandates that all legislative powers reside in the House and Senate and in no other body. In fact, until 2015 members of Congress had not been allowed to even see the treaty whereas privileged corporations had no problem with access.

The paper continued, “The treaty has 29 chapters, dealing with everything from financial services to telecommunications to sanitary standards for food,” demonstrating the wide variety of areas believed to be affected by it, but again, it is the secretive nature of it that is most offensive. Apparently TPP participants signed “a confidentiality agreement requiring them to share proposals only with ‘government officials and individuals who are part of the government’s domestic trade advisory process’.” That excluded you, the media, Congress, and me.

The Post acknowledged that the agreement “encompass a broad range of regulatory and legal issues, making them a much more central part of foreign policy and even domestic lawmaking.” Such is curious. The Constitution requires the approval of your two U. S. Senators and your House member for every regulation upon you. There exists no language in the Constitution that any other individual or body—especially an international body—can perform this function. And, international law should not affect “domestic lawmaking.” You have the right to know that these three have read every rule emanating from the federal government upon you. The admission that the TPP will influence foreign policy is interesting as only the U.S. Senate may influence foreign policy as per Article II, Section II.   Giving a “more central part of foreign policy” to an international agency would have virtually voided the Constitution in this area.

The Post identified “60 senators (who) have asked for the final agreement to address currency manipulation.” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, both Democrats, have been especially vocal about the Obama “Administration’s refusal to make draft text available.” Wikileaks published the chapter on intellectual property raising “many questions about copyright protections.” Obviously this treaty, while billed as just a trade agreement, included music, film, books, the Internet and appeared to restrict everything in the industry. And this was but one of 29 chapters.

The implementation procedure of the globalists was to gain consensus among the countries signing it, all had by February 4, 2016, then present it Fast Track and without debate to both branches of Congress for a simple up or down vote.   Again, this procedure flies in the face of the Constitution. Treaty making, an agreement between two or more countries, is a shared power between the president and the senate. The president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” President Barack Obama did not seek Senate advice; indeed he has not even allowed the Senate to read his treaty prior to November 5, 2015, even then he accepted no changes in it. Then he presented it to both houses for a simple majority vote instead of only to the Senate for a two-thirds vote as constitutionally mandated.

Law by a single man excluding Congress is unconstitutional. International law imposed by an army of unelected bureaucrats is not freedom. The Trans Pacific Partnership would have siphoned decision-making power from the elected to the non-elected in a foreign land and would have affected every American. A signature by any member of Congress or by a president would have violated his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Thank God Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not present it to the Senate when finished and President Trump took it off the table entirely.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Taxing Christmas: A Satirical Look Ahead

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The country is now almost 20 trillion dollars in debt.  Many erroneously believe that the only way to solve this problem is to increase taxes rather than to cut spending. Judging by extreme laws passed and proposed in recent years, including the 15% Christmas Tree Tax unsuccessfully advocated by President Obama in 2011, a tax on Christmas could come true.  Let’s follow the Ghost of Christmas Future and see what such a bill might look like:

Congress recently discovered how unfair Christmas really is, as some get more presents than others.  To correct this injustice, a 1,500-page law called the Christmas Equalization Tax is working its way through judiciary committees in both the House and Senate and will be on the floor of both houses very soon.

Under the new law, to begin next year, shoppers buying gifts for loved ones are required to fill out Form 13,207, The Affidavit of Gift Recipients, indicating said recipients by name, social security number, and birth date, and completing a five-page information sheet for each named recipient.  Retailers then fill out Form 13,208, The Affidavit of Christmas Gifts, and forward the information to the IRS for national list tabulation.

The total allotment per Christmas per person is 20 gifts.  Totals exceeding this number in intervals of 10 will be assessed a gradual value added tax up to 70% of the value of the gifts in excess.  Overall value is also taxed up to 100% for any total exceeding $400.  This information is submitted on The Affidavit of Excess Christmas Value (Form 13,209).  If you have problems following the formulas, so do the lawyers who made them up.  However it does help create many jobs for those in that industry, and ensure employment for them for decades to come in their efforts to help us keep the rules straight or in resulting litigation.

The amount collected will be given to the New Organization to Fight Underprivileged Nations (NOFUN). This organization supports those suffering from Christmas Depravation Syndrome, a debilitating mental disorder recently discovered by psychologists to inhibit the development of ambition and drive, drastically reducing self-esteem, self-actualization, and quality of life.

Recipients must fill out a simple 10-page form entitled The Underprivileged Christmas Affidavit (Form 13,210), which allows participants to identify favorite gifts. Unlike the shoppers, benefit recipients would not be limited to 20 gifts.  No doubt they have been “gift deprived” long enough and compensation must be made.  This is the only way to guarantee fairness and equality for all people across the entire lifespan.

Currently, those applying for benefits from NOFUN do so by contacting their local Human Services Agency.  Lawmakers are uncertain whether the program will remain with HSA or be turned over to ACORN, or some other reputable organization already in existence.  The more likely option is to create a whole new department to oversee the program.  The necessary “monitoring,” which certainly would create much needed employment to help stimulate the economy, would require at least 15,000 new federal employees.

The excess tax is thought to be sufficient for funding the under-gifted, but critics are skeptical about its ability to fund the 15,000 federal agents as well.  Some say that unsympathetic shoppers will lower the number of gifts they buy to 20 per person, thus avoiding the excess tax altogether, and leaving the taxpayer to fund the $37 billion for both the “under-gifted” and the federal employees.

Proponents say this “disinformation” comes from incompassionate right-wing extremists, who are simply in the pockets of evil money-mongering capitalists who oppose the individual gift limits.  Proponents assure that the cost will be covered by the seventh stimulus package, the 3,500 paged bill now on the desk of your Congressmen and women.

Additional legislation on the table is to tax excessive tree height, Christmas decorations, and turkey or ham size.  Levels of happiness could also be taxed as soon as technology is able to measure it.  We might also tax travel distance as it is so unfair that some get to travel greater distances than others, or travel mode, some have money to fly others have to drive or ride a bus to get to see their loved ones.

Lawmakers hope to expand the legislation on Christmas to Hanukkah next year for the same reasons.  Atheists have suggested making both holidays illegal altogether, imposing stiff fines on violators instead as it could raise even more money for the disadvantaged, more especially as religion, in their view, is the opiate of the people and is a very expensive myth.

So many injustices to alleviate, so little time.

Merry Christmas my liberty loving friends.

Plymouth and Jamestown Rejected Socialism as Did We

By Dr. Harold Pease

It is said that the casualties of this presidential election in order were the toppling of the Bush dynasty, the Clinton dynasty, and the nullification of the Obama legacy. At the top, however, is a rejection of socialism. No two presidential candidates have been more socialistic than Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, and half of America voted for socialism. Keeping Obamacare and instituting “free college” would have made it very difficult to argue that we had not become a socialist country. This is despite the harsh lessons of our socialist beginnings.

This Thanksgiving Day we think of the Pilgrims enjoying abundant food, but this was not their real reality. Few will mention the starving times the first year in 1620 when half died of starvation. Harvests were not bountiful in that year and the next two. Plymouth was beset by laziness and thievery. William Bradford, the governor of the colony, in his History of Plymouth Plantation reported that “much was stolen both by night and day” to alleviate the prevailing condition of hunger. The mythical “feast” of the first Thanksgiving did fill their bellies briefly, he reported, and they were grateful, but abundance was anything but common. Why did this happen? Because they had fallen victim to the socialistic philosophy of “share the wealth.” This dis-incentivized the productive base of society.

Then suddenly, as though night changed to day, the crop of 1623 was bounteous, and those thereafter as well, and it had nothing to do with the weather. Bradford wrote, “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” He concluded later, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”

One variable alone made the difference and ended the three-year famine. They abandoned the notion of government (or corporation) owning the means of production and distribution in favor of the individual having property and being responsible to take care of himself. Before, no one benefited by working because he received the same compensation as those who did not. After the change everyone kept the benefits of his labor. Those who chose not to work basically chose also to be poor and the government (corporation) no longer confiscated from those who produced to give to those who did not. No government food stamps here.

Ironically all this could have been avoided had Plymouth consulted history and communicated with their neighboring colony, some distance south of them, who had previously been down the same trail. Jamestown too was first a socialist society where each produced according to his ability and received according to his need, which, of course, affected supply. One cannot divide what does not exist. Our textbooks tell us that only one of twelve survived the first two years for precisely the same reason, starvation. The problem, as noted by Tom Bethel in his work The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, was identified by an unnamed participant as “want of providence, industrie and government, and not the barenness and defect of the Countrie.”

Captain John Smith is credited with having saved the floundering colony by his “no workie, no eatie” government program (once again, the Virginia Company was the government) and was hated for it. Addicted to the promise of getting something for nothing, even if it is always less than promised, the receiving part of the population will always oppose their not getting their “fair share.” Sound familiar?  Captain Smith was eventually carted off to England in chains as fast as the parasitic population could do so. Once again, why? Philip A. Bruce in his Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, p. 121 called it agricultural socialism. “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil…. Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” When settlers finally were allowed to own their own property, and keep what they produced, things changed over night.

Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote of incoming prosperity, beginning in 1614, after ownership of land was allowed. “When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he [who] could slip from his labor, or slumber over his tasks he cared not how, nay, the most honest among them would hardly take so much true pains in a week, as now for themselves they will do in a day, neither cared they for the increase, presuming that however the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them, so that we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty as now three or four do provide for themselves.”

This Thanksgiving let us be grateful for the prosperity that we have—even the poorest among us. Jamestown and Plymouth set us upon a course that recognized that prosperity requires incentive to flourish and that the profit motive stimulates industry. We are so grateful that, having recognized the poison of “the share the wealth” philosophy, they purged it from their midst and proceeded to make America the most prosperous country on earth.

We remain mostly a socialist country but the plunge deeper has been avoided for now and we have a chance to set a new course distancing ourselves more fully from it, as did they. Will we be so smart? Let us share this message at the table as we feast upon turkey and pumpkin pie this Thanksgiving Day so that our children will know how prosperity is really produced.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

“White Americans Need to do a Better Job of Listening”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

“White Americans need to do a better job of listening,” said Hillary Clinton recently with respect to problems in our black communities. We agree. Progressive policies of the last fifty years, which she champions, notably welfare, have done much to return our black brother to a slavery of dependence and seemingly to set our black communities on fire driven mostly by angry black young men with little hope.

Herman Cain, 2012 black presidential contender, said it best: “Uncle Sam is the master who gives today’s nominally free blacks just enough to get by so that they can continue to work for their master by voting for those politicians who promise to give them more of other people’s earnings.”

Many in the black community know that these progressive policies, in exchange for their vote and loyalty to the progressive agenda, have left them less educated, less employable, less family oriented and more on welfare, and more both the perpetrator as well as the victim of crime. Progressivism, primarily advanced by the Democratic Party, ensures 95% Black voter support.

This column shares black solutions for black problems, not normally given by the establishment press, as they identify what must change. Again, “White Americans need to do a better job of listening.” It also borrows much from the New American article “Real Solutions for Black Americans,” written by Michael Tennant. Their common message: “Blacks are worse off now than they were before government began ‘helping’ them.”

George Mason University black economics professor Walter E. Williams speaks to the education problem where nearly half of blacks in government schools drop out of school. Those who do reach the 12th grade, according to The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), “score at the same level as the average white seventh-or eighth-grader on standardized tests.” Williams identifies private black schools such as Marva Collins School in Cincinnati and Marcus Garvey School in Chicago where “85 percent of those kids at each of those schools read at or above…grade level….” Those not happy with government schools must have choice of other types of schools. Competition with school choice must return.

Williams advocates four other changes to help his people. The Department of Education and all federal education programs and money must be abolished as quickly as possible. More should be expected of teachers. “Education majors,” he says, “have the lowest entrance-exam scores of all majors in college.”   Schools must enforce discipline, order, and structure. Finally, affirmative action must be abolished.   “Black students need to be admitted to schools where they belong on the basis of their preparation and aptitude. Were this the case, many more blacks would graduate than currently do.”

With respect to ending blacks being less employable, two actions are needed. First, repealing “the minimum wage and other labor laws that discourage the employment of low-skilled workers would make it possible for many blacks to get their first jobs, where they can gain skills that will enable them to move up to higher-paying jobs and out of poverty.” Second, “remove barriers to starting and expanding businesses…. From licensing laws to permit requirements to environmental impact assessments.” Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, a Black pastor working in the trenches, said it best: “We need the government out of our lives, really, as much as possible.” Adding: “Let the free market reign.”

With respect to welfare it must end says Professor Williams. He suggests “giving welfare recipients a definite deadline after which there will be no more handouts and, in the meantime, making them work for their welfare checks.” The private sector could help in teaching skills that enable getting good jobs, as once it did. Reverend Peterson does exactly this through his Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND). “We’re teaching these boys a trade so when they finish high school, if they don’t want to go to college, they don’t have to.” Fraternal societies and churches did much of this in pre government handout days and they will again if the federal government slowly stepped out, Peterson argued.

With respect to blacks being both the perpetrator as well as the victim of crime, both education and employment of young black men in particular would help. Blacks are also “disproportionately victimized by criminals in part because they live in cities with strict gun control laws that criminals ignore. Repealing these laws would give potential victims a chance to defend themselves.” Also needed is for black communities “to get more people attending church.” Males normally drop church attendance early, Peterson notes, “If kids are raised in the church and they stay in church…. They’re significantly less likely to get arrested.”

What is promising is that real black leaders, those in the trenches (not the “race baiting” televised leaders), have the solutions for their own people and Hillary is right, “White Americans need to do a better job of listening.” Perhaps she should take her own advice. Only then will the predominantly white government cease bribing black people with “free” money. For blacks it is not a conservative or liberal solution but a matter of freeing their people from slavery a second time.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

“We are all Socialists Now”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The near panic associated with the possibility of Bernie Sanders, after winning the New Hampshire primary and doing so well in South Carolina and Nevada, overtaking Hillary Clinton and becoming the Democratic nominee for president, is treated by the establishment press as a gigantic move into socialism, but it shouldn’t. Seven years ago, Feb. 16, 2009, Newsweek’s cover story proclaimed “We Are All Socialists Now.”

Editors Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas wrote, “Whether we want to admit it or not, the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state,” toward socialism, they observed, “even before Barack Obama’s largest fiscal bill in our history.” The cover of the magazine featured a red hand (republican) shaking a blue hand (democrat) in favor of socialism. Both parties accepted the “growing role of government in the economy,” they observed. “The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries.” Moreover, “it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly.”

If the “growing role in government” was how Newsweek measured socialism, the Obama years thereafter were even more socialist than they could have expected. In this time period the federal government obtained a controlling interest in General Motors, absorbed 1/7th of the economy under Obamacare, and expanded the power of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to oversee most homes in America. This land expansion was in addition to their ownership of a third of all the landmass in the United States known as federal land. This does not count the controlling influence over all businesses by the eighty thousand new pages of bureaucratic rules and regulations descending upon businesses annually that effectively manage most everything else.

Clearly we were replacing our Constitutional Republic, which emphasizes limited government and individual freedom, with socialism long before Sanders became a household name. His appeal to tax the rich even more to pay for free college is but a deeper step into the socialism that already exists in the United States. Newsweek observed correctly then that this was just the beginning. In light of their honesty it might behoove us to understand where socialist might be taking us by noting where socialism has taken others.

In 1975 the book, “From Under the Ruble,” authored by a variety of Soviet dissidents, all but one of whom were still living in the USSR, was published in the West. The participants were fully aware that their commentary on the socialist system smuggled to the “Free World” would undoubtedly unleash the wrath of the Soviet Bear and result in imprisonment, torture, and possibly death for them. Nonetheless, they felt that the West could avoid the loss of freedom they experienced if only it were warned.

Igor Shafarevich, a corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and former Laureate of the Lenin Prize, attempted, in his chapter “Socialism in Our Past and Future,” to tell the West what socialism eventually worked out to be in practice. This is, of course, after any significant means of resistance had been removed by gun control. That is the first thing that goes in any tyrannical government. He found the economic definition of socialism, the meaningful governmental control of the means of production and distribution, shamefully incomplete.

Socialism resulted in complete control of private property. Property was defined as anything that existed including one’s own family and person. This included subordination of the individual to the power of the bureaucracy and state control of everyday life. Sexual promiscuity is first tolerated, even encourage, but ultimately procreation on a selective and supervised basis follows.

For the USSR socialism meant the destruction of the family as the basic institution of society and the rearing of children away from their parents in state schools or daycare centers. Marriage, as an acceptable practice, was also minimized.

One of the most defining characteristics of all profoundly socialist countries was the government’s extreme hatred of religion and their commitment to its ultimate destruction. It competes with the state as God.

The destruction of the hierarchy into which society has arranged itself was yet another characteristic under which Shafarevich lived. The idea of equality to a socialist had a special character. It meant the negation of the existence of any genuine differences between individuals: “equality” was turned into “equivalence.” Socialism aims to establish equality by the opposite means of destroying all the higher aspects of the personality.

Newsweek’s invitation to “think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world” should dissuade us from going there at all. Why would anyone want to embrace a system that ended all semblances of freedom and which, for them, self destructed in 1989? At least in the USSR, at that time, they would have been happy to trade their socialism for our freedom. Are we smart enough to listen to them and avoid all socialists in either party, of which there are several, this election?