It is also a fact that most collage kids are liberal, being taught by liberal professors, and will vote for the liberal candidate, that is until they get a job and have to pay taxes and pay for themselves, with no more money from home.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but true conservatives none of the time. Uncle Ronnie never got fooled by them. I’ll try not to either.

Firstly, is the notion of equal opportunity. The US has never been caste- or class-driven; as a national people we never directly experienced an aristocratic monarchy. This not only allowed the individual to identify himself or herself, it demanded it. Thus the unleashing of heretofore constrained visions and opportunities. This is also why slavery was such a hideous contradiction to the very spirit of this nation; even the indentured servant could have a hope of release that the slave could not. Little wonder it tore the national fabric!

But as we polarize ourselves and settle into our classes, we become defensive about them, and jealous of incursions to our turf. It is so much easier to allow yourself to be defined by circumstance and happenstance than it is to stake out and defend your own individuality. With a smaller, weaker central government that option was not available. The larger government intrudes, robs initiative, and renders opportunity passé. If your existence is guaranteed, what is your incentive?

The second reason that the US has not become as socialized as much else of the world is because of an educated population. One of the striking things during the Soviet adventurism during the 50s, 60s, and 70s was the appeal of the communist doctrine among the peasantry in many other countries. Contrast that to the US farmer – who were the staunchest anti-communists in our country! What made the difference? The only thing that I could ever come up with was that we had an educated general population. I’ve worked with many other nationalities, and have seen the difference between an elitist education model (them) vs. a populist education model (us). As an example, I found British engineers were impressive in the depth of the subject knowledge; but they knew very little outside of their specialty. The US engineers were not as deeply instructed, but had a broader knowledge. US engineers could think in terms of systems; British engineers could think in terms of applications.

This shows why the US has typically been more inventive, and more innovative than, say, our European counterparts. Comparing US test scores to European ones is not apples-to-apples. Many of the citizenry in Europe is not afforded the education opportunities that are given to US citizens. As an example of that result, here in the US look at SAT scores mapped against percent participation: it is (and has long been known as) a very clear inverse relationship: the fewer who took the testing, the better the result. That is what you really see when you compare US test scores against European: you see the result of elitist vs. populist educational policy outcomes.

Because we think in terms of systems, we see the implications of policies better, and have (for example) resisted socialism more successfully as a result. This is also why I hate to see national education policies in the US, and especially when they tell us that we must specialize in math and science better. Doing so will surrender a key component to the American character. I want the populist; you can always buy the elitist.

Our turn toward the liberalism is perhaps inevitable because we are a democracy. We used to be a republic, but that argument is seldom voiced any more these days. We can and do vote ourselves the government largess; I see that is consistent to human nature, and therefore it is likely unstoppable. I see government as having little scope to actually improve things, but an enormous capability to wreck things. By ‘wrecking’ I mean a full subscription to the concept of ‘unintended consequences’: enacting policies intended to be helpful (welfare, corpfare, trade restrictions, wealth redistribution) all done in earnest good will, but unbelievably destructive in practice. And so very, very hard to undo after the fact. Two years of a liberal congress and a compliant President will hamstring us for a long, long time – perhaps indefinitely.

We’ve resisted the socialist siren call for a long time, but we are now drawn to it because we no longer define ourselves; we look to others to define who we are. So many live vicariously through television heros, blaming genetics for character short-comings, and looking for some outside third party to tell that it is OK to feel this way or that. Goodbye to critical thinking and self-awareness, and welcome to subfusion into the mass.

I don’t want to end this screed so negatively, because the ideals of the US of A are still intact. But we will need to find another road to achieve them.

Unfortunately, the rest of us will be forced to mitigate the damage done to our constitutional republic by what will surely be an Obama Administration that is defined by an unbroken string of missteps, unintended consequences and complete failures.

You have to wonder though.

If socialism is so darned popular, why has it taken so long for the United States to adopt all of it, instead of just bits and pieces of it (rather substantial amounts of it admittedly)?

Harry Truman wanted to enact national health care.

So did Lyndon Johnson. So did Jimmy Carter. So did Bill Clinton.

If it’s so friggin’ popular, you’d think that might have done it already.

Take the Wagner Act as well. Pass in 1935 during FDR’s peak of popularity, you would have thought at the time that this meant the United States workforce would become about 70 percent unionized or more than that.

But the US has one of the least unionized workforces in the world. And most unionized workers in the US today are government employees (mostly teachers and nurses).

I’m not trying to completely talk you out of your pessimism since I share quite a lot of it.

But, again, if socialism is so danged popular, why did the Berlin Wall collapse without a shot being fired?

It takes a while before the pain and ruin set in. That is the problem. Then by that time people are used to it, and do not want to go back. Instead they call for government to “fix it”, which means even more socialism.