What the Democrats’ Reactionary Views on Voting Actually Mean

The Democrats appear poised to win control of one or both houses of Congress. So it’s a good time to revisit the Democrats' reactionary designs on our electoral process, especially now that their party is increasingly captured by the radically counter-Enlightenment, Marxist-oriented anti-American Democratic Socialists of America, whose agenda includes totalitarian Democracy fundamentalism. 

In a leadup to Martin Luther King Jr. day, 2022, President Joe Biden gave a rousing speech in Georgia pushing his party’s so-called Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act,* which combines the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. But this was no mere campaign-style speech. Biden dove right into the thick of political philosophy, reaching straight back to the Founding of America. In doing so, Biden clearly and explicitly exposed the reactionary premises of the Democratic Party.

After falsely claiming voting rights across America as under threat from laws like Georgia’s new voting law as, Biden’s philosophic treason comes into full view:

The filibuster has been weaponized and abused.

Today I’m making it clear: To protect our democracy, I support changing the Senate rules, whichever way they need to be changed — (applause) — to prevent a minority of senators from blocking action on voting rights.  (Applause.)  

When it comes to protecting majority rule in America, the majority should rule in the United States Senate.  

I make this announcement with careful deliberation, recognizing the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. [My emphasis]

This is nothing short of a repudiation of America and its Enlightenment roots. The Declaration of Independence states clearly, in these “magnificent words” as per Doctor Martin Luther King Jr., 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . [my emphasis]

This is not mere rhetorical flourish. America has never been about majority rule. The idea of unalienable Rights and the government’s sole purpose to “to secure these rights” is deeply rooted in Enlightenment philosophy, led by John Locke, embraced by America’s Founding Fathers, and ultimately, clarified and solidified by 20th Century philosopher Ayn Rand. The principle of individual rights is derived from man’s individual nature as a rational being, and precedes government. The truth is the exact opposite of Biden’s reactionary formulation: Man’s  fundamental inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are the rights from which all other rights—including the right to vote—flow.

After railing against Trump and his supporters for attempting to commandeer “the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies,” Biden announces that rights are privileges granted by government, a foundational power of totalitarian states. This is not a power of constitutional republics such as, in its Founding ideals—the very same ideals drawn on by King in support of his Civil Rights Movement—the United States of America!

So what does it mean, in practice, when “the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow?” It means majority rule. Mob rule. When rights flow from the right to vote, then all rights flow from the government—and the flow goes both ways.

• It means the “rights” of majorities to vote minorities into slavery, which was a plank of the antebellum Democratic Party. 

• It means the “rights” of majorities, or the majority’s elected representatives, to force unwilling citizens to fund political campaigns. 

• It means the power to vote in governments to grant “rights” to material benefits, such as healthcare or education, that take away the rights of the citizens who are forced to provide and/or fund them—selectively, as in the regulatory welfare state, or across the board, as in a fully socialist country

• It means the “right” of voters to install sharia law, violating the right to freedom of religion.

• It means that Jim Crow laws were legitimate, democratically legitimate. Those laws were established by elected representatives--and, for a time upheld by the courts.

• It means endorsing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade because it made a women’s right to abortion a matter of democratic vote rather than inalienable. 

That’s exactly the evil that the Founders abolished. When the British government began systematically to take away the colonists’ “rights of Englishmen,” the Founders realized that there must be a firmer foundation for rights than the benevolent whims (or lack of) of a King or other ruling authority, including the rule of elected legislatures. They found that firm foundation for the preservation of their rights in the theory of natural rights, a product of The Enlightenment; the theory that man by his very nature, and his relationship to broader nature, requires the freedom to take the actions necessary for the furtherance of his life, secured by, in the words of John Locke, inalienable individual rights.  

The Democratic Party, along with the Confederate intellectuals, rejected those principles by radically reinterpreting the Founding of America as a Democracy, not a constitutional republic. The Democrats haven’t changed their stripes. They claimed rights were grants of state authority, derived from the vote, rather than from the laws of nature, and their elected governments deprived blacks their rights—The fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow--or not flow, as elected representatives deemed to declare. Today, on Democratic Party reactionary premises, an entire country can be voted into socialist slavery. The Democratic Party has Democratic Socialists embedded within. Venezuela elected and re-elected socialist leaders Chavez and Madura, and rights were systematically stripped away--voted away--turning Venezuela into an unfree, impoverished basket case. 

That’s what you get when you declare that rights come from the state--that the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. As we can clearly see in theory and in practice, a government from which rights flow is also a government from which rights can recede. Biden has it backwards. In fact, in a Democracy as conceived by Biden, the right to vote is the “right” that puts all other rights at risk.

Then came the final outrage of Biden’s philosophic treason. Biden framed the debate over his Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act in apocalyptic demagoguery—as a choice of democracy over autocracy, light over shadows, justice over injustice; as a choice for or against voter suppression, election subversion, and democracy. With a straight face, Biden dropped the hammer on opponents:

So, I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered? 

At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want to be the si- — on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?  Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor?  Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

It was the Confederate intelligentsia that repudiated the ideal of inalienable individual rights, or natural rights theory, and reconceived America as a Democracy under which all rights flow from government—to protect their slavocracy. Who, then, is siding with the president of the slaveholding Confederacy, Jefferson Davis? Biden’s belief that “the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow,” a principle upon which his Justice Department is basing its lawsuit against the state of Georgia over that state’s new election law, dovetails seamlessly with the philosophy of the Slave Power centered in Confederate States of America and its Democratic Party allies. 

To Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, election to political office in America is not an honorable job that entails doing the legal work of securing the fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness of its citizens. To today’s democratic socialist Democrats, like the antebellum Democrats and the Jim Crow Democrats and the welfare state Democrats, getting elected to political office is a license for totalitarian power—to the extent they can get away with it—to do the work of deciding what rights are, who gets them, who doesn’t, and to enforce those “rights” through legal coercion. While pretending to be on the side of mid-twentieth century civil rights crusaders, Biden is actually on the opposite side philosophically. Whereas Martin Luther King Jr., for all of his mixed and inconsistent politics, was squarely on the side of the Founding principles. Joe Biden has chosen the opposite side. 

In case you think this is hyperbole, consider that Biden’s view is precisely affirmed by his own Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland, and by his Vice President, Kamala Harris, during her presidential candidacy. Since philosophy is the primary engine of history, who, then, is the real Protégé of Jefferson Davis? Add to this the fact that, as political scholar Michael Barone reminds us, “George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis were all partisan Democrats.” 

There is plenty more that is bad about the Democrats’ attempt to enact their election reforms. I covered the bad elements in my post HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy. Some version of the Democrats’ “Voting Rights” bill has been kicking around Congress for years. For now, it remains stalled. Let’s hope it never becomes law, and fight to kill it.

* (This bill remains stalled in Congress.)

Related Reading:

HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy

The Democrats’ Anti-Free Speech Bill HR-1—the ‘For the People Act’—is Still a Threat

The Dangerous Totalitarian Premise Underpinning the Justice Department’s Suit Against Georgia’s New Election Law

Harris's Unchanged anti-American Values

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right. 

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

Understanding the Role of the Senate Filibuster

Jesse Jackson’s Big Lie: ‘American Democracy is Under Siege’

A New Textbook of Americanism: The Politics of Ayn Rand edited by Jonathan Hoenig

This Labor Day, Celebrate Intellectual Labor

 The United States Department of Labor, speaking on The History of Labor Day, had this to say on its website:

Some records show that Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a cofounder of the American Federation of Labor, was first in suggesting a day to honor those “who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.”

Really? There is no doubt about what is meant here. McGuire was referring to people who “work with their hands”. Is that what built America? Physical labor has existed since time immemorial. What changed in the last two hundred + years that suddenly endowed the American worker with the means to produce “all the grandeur we behold” out of raw, “rude” nature? (Note the word “all”).

The American worker has, indeed, contributed significantly to the American Economic juggernaut. But, it was not because of his labor, as such. It was because of his intellectual mastery of the theoretical and material tools of production provided to him that vastly increased the value of his labor.

Physical labor, as such, has very little value. Slaves can perform it. So can mules pulling hand plows.

Consider my trade, plumbing. If my job is fundamentally physical labor, then any able-bodied person off of the street can wander onto any construction job site and robotically perform the task of installing plumbing systems. He can simply be told: “Run this pipe from here to there”, and it will get done. He has the same muscles and bones, nerves and guts that I have, after all.

That, of course, could never be the case. Performing my task (or any construction trade) requires reliance on previously acquired theoretical knowledge, on-the-job apprenticeship training, the mastery of the tools, materials, and procedures of the trade, and years of learning experience. This is to say nothing of the continuing education that new materials and technologies require of me.

My job is knowledge-based. All modern jobs are, to varying extent. How did that knowledge become imbued in my brain? - by my choice to expend the intellectual effort to acquire it. Even the muscular physical motions my job requires had to be learned by a conscious mental effort that led to the appropriate neurological connections.

Do you still think mere physical labor built this country?

The idea that a laborer “works with his hands” is only superficially true. What directs the motions of his hands? It is his focussed, reasoning mind – if he is a motivated worker who strives to be the best that he can be at his chosen occupation. If not, then that worker is a mere drone.

And that gets directly to the point. The celebration of “labor” as a holiday implies that mindless worker. Labor Day ignores the intellectual root of modern, productive labor. It ignores the intellectual labor of the inventor and entrepreneur that created the worker’s job—and the workers' tools and processes—to begin with, and the intellectual labor that the competent worker must expend to learn to perform his job.

Human knowledge is fleeting, but for the grace of those who came before us and chose to acquire it and pass it on. Knowledge can not be passed on from person to person or generation to generation innately. No one is born with previously discovered knowledge, but rather with a mind that is tabula rasa – a blank slate. To celebrate “all the grandeur we behold”, it is to the discoverer and the acquirers of knowledge that we must pay initial gratitude to. The worker, by learning the skills he needs to perform his job, plays his role in keeping that knowledge train going.

This does not, however, mean that labor is inconsequential. Theoretical knowledge in and of itself has little value, unless and until it is placed into the service of man’s living requirements. The process of turning knowledge into the material values humans need to live and to flourish is dependent upon the contributions of many economic players. The value of each player’s contribution to this productive process varies and is dependent upon many factors. But all through that process – from the discoverer of new knowledge to the final material product put together by the worker – the value added represents, at root, the application of the mind.

“[W]hen you live in a rational society, where men are free to trade, you receive an incalculable bonus: the material value of your work is determined not only by your effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around you.

“When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think…” (Page 1064)

Labor Day, according to the DOL, was created in 1882. That was the heyday of Karl Marx’s rise to prominence among the American intellectual elite. Marx was the theoretician of “Dialectical Materialism”, the idea that man’s consciousness – his spirit, his intellect, ability, and logic – plays at best a minimal role in the production process. Human beings, according to Marx, are conditioned by the physical world around them, including the means of production like tools and factories, which just happened into existence. Our modern, complex, and advanced industrial society is the product of mindless, conditioned muscular movements, according to Marx (and others). It is owing to the Marxist theory of the mind – i.e., spiritual values - as of little consequence that gave rise to the myth that labor and those that perform it are the primary engines of economic progress.

Labor Day, whether one knows or wants to admit it or not, is an outgrowth of Marxism and the “labor theory of economic value” that so enamored late 19th century American intellectuals.

The DOL concludes its Labor Day salute as follows:

"It is appropriate … that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation's strength, freedom, and leadership — the American worker."

Not quite. Instead, we should pay tribute to the creator of the American worker.

This Labor Day, we should celebrate not just workers, but those who made our jobs and prosperity possible. This country was not built by physical labor. It was built by intellectual labor applied to physical labor under a system of individual rights that allowed everyone the freedom to think and, above all, to act on his thinking. Instead of patting ourselves on the back for our labor, we “workers” should reflect on the mental efforts that we had to expend in order to acquire the previously discovered knowledge that makes it possible to perform our jobs. We should stop selling ourselves short. Labor Day is an insult to the American Worker.

More importantly, we should give silent thanks to all of those intellectual “laborers” who came before us – the discoverers, the inventors, the investors, the businessmen - who made our well-paying jobs possible.

Instead of Labor Day, we should celebrate Intellectual Labor Day.

Or, better yet, we should celebrate political and economic freedom—i.e., Capitalism – the social system of the United States of America. Capitalism unleashed the individual human mind. It is Capitalism that liberated the inventor, entrepreneur, businessman, and industrialist, who in turn made it possible for the American worker to have acquired the means to rise to middle class status and prosper. The labor movement fought for better working condiditions, shorter work weeks, and the like. But those victories couldn't have been possible without the tools of increased worker productivity and consumer products created by the inventor/entrepreneur/businessman/industrialist, who wouldn't have been possible without capitalism. The labor movement could not have been possible in any other era in human history. Capitalism made the labor movement possible.

It is Capitalism’s liberated human mind that from rude nature has delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.

Capitalism is what I will be quietly rejoicing as I enjoy my long weekend.

Happy Labor Day!!

Related Reading:

Atlas Shrugged—Ayn Rand

To Whom Does the American Worker Owe His Prowess?

Did Unions Create the Middle Class?

QUORA: 'How is becoming a billionaire even possible, chronologically?'

Another View:

Don’t Forget to Celebrate Capital on Labor Day, Too from FEE

"Labor is ennobling because it’s an important source of such values as self-esteem, personal fulfillment, responsibility, accomplishment, and voluntary cooperation. It’s both a vehicle and an outlet for our talents and ambitions. Good parents instinctively teach their children that work is a virtue and a benefit, while idleness and laziness are to be avoided.

"But all of that could also be said of another vital ingredient in our standard of living—capital. Most of us would starve without it. Creating it and then deploying it to increase material wealth is ennobling just as much as labor is, and for the same reasons. The creator and user of capital is furthering his talents and ambitions in the process. And every parent who tells his child to mow the lawn hopes he’ll do it with a piece of capital equipment like a lawn mower instead of his teeth."

[True. But never reverse cause and effect. Without labor -- especially the labor of the mind -- capital is useless. In fact, it doesn't exist.]

Data Centers -- Some Thoughts

Wow! As 2026 arrived, hardly anybody cared or even knew about data centers, it seemed. Suddenly, AI data centers dominate the news—and, unfortunately, not in a good way, despite the enormous benefits these infrastructure projects promise to enable. The explosive anti-data center sentiment is accompanied by a monumental bubble of benefit denialism. There has been almost no coverage of the positives, and they are many and massive (Although this may start to change soon).

In that vein, the Associated Press recently ran an article, Trump keeps embracing data centers even as they become toxic in midterm races. I shared the article on  Facebook with the following caption:

At least Trump is honest and on the right side of this issue, unlike the cowardly politicians who cave in to irrational public hysteria just for a few lousy votes. It's not often these days that I could give a Kudos for Trump. 

In answer to a reader question “But would you want one in your quiet community?", I replied:

Absolutely, for many reasons . . .and completely beside the point. I don’t own “the community.” I only own my property. I would never be part of any NIMBY mob trying to block commerce on someone else's property without good reason. These basically innocuous but vitally important infrastructure projects are being financed by private enterprise, not public tax dollars, and being built on private land by people exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of contract, property, and trade. I have seen no reason to oppose, and plenty to support, data centers. 

The buildout of data centers has been ongoing for more than 30 years, and I worked on the construction of some, including in my area. Suddenly, they're bad? Why? From what I observe, the sudden broad opposition to data centers is mostly ideologically driven by people opposed to free markets and peddling one-sided, massive amounts of miss-information and false claims.

My wife Kathy chimed in with these two comments intended to stress her agreement with me and that we are consistent in our free market principles:

I remember when a builder wanted to use his property across the street from us to build a mixed use community from low income to high income housing….2100 homes. He offered to also build stores and a school and donate the school to the township. Many around us decided to fight the community. We chose not to because we felt it was his private property. The town fought it, but ended up buying the property back and using it for farmland preservation with local and state taxpayer money. Was I happy it didn’t happen? Yes, of course. But both you and I believe that the builder had a right to use his land as he saw fit as long as it wasn’t an actual detriment to its surroundings. 

And . . .,

Another example….Solberg Airport [Readington Township, NJ *]…which flew small aircraft from it…wanted to expand it to accommodate jets. The town threatened to seize the airport using Eminent Domain **…which was stopped by the courts. Would we want jets flying in and out of our town? Of course not. But we supported Solberg Airport on principle that they had the right to do that. The airport has applications pending and we don’t know the current status, but we don’t believe in the theft of land from private property owners. 

* [See my tribute to its founder, Thor Solberg Jr.]

** [I wrote extensively on this hideous attack on the airport. My post on Thor Solberg Jr is followed by numerous links to my posts.]

Related Reading:

The Myth of Technological Unemployment by Deirdre Nansen McCloskey 

The Luddites Were Wrong Then and They're Wrong Now by David Waller 

Automation and Jobs: Perfect Together

The Capitalist Manifesto—Andrew Bernstein

On Socialism and Democracy

This Post appeared on the Facebook page of The Federalist Papers:

DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] Co-Chair Megan Romer did Americans a favor by saying the quiet part out loud.

“We will win by making conditions so intolerable to the ruling class that they would rather give in to our demands than live with the disturbance we cause until we are able to fully seize power ourselves.” [Confirmed]

Read those words again.

This is not a call to persuade voters, win honest debates, or pass legislation through the normal democratic process. It is a declaration that socialists intend to deliberately make life intolerable until people surrender to their demands.

That is what socialists do.

They create disruption, resentment, fear, and economic pain, then present themselves as the solution to the misery they helped produce. The objective is not peaceful coexistence. The objective is power.

Americans should take this threat seriously.

When political activists block roads, occupy buildings, intimidate workers, interfere with law enforcement, destroy property, or attempt to shut down ordinary life, government officials cannot continue treating it as harmless protest. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right. Coercion, vandalism, threats, and organized lawlessness are not.

Anyone who crosses that line should face arrest, prosecution, jail, civil liability, and every other lawful consequence available.

There can be no special exemption because the people causing the disruption claim to be pursuing “social justice.” A crime committed for socialism is still a crime.

The most revealing portion of Romer’s statement is the desire to “fully seize power.” That phrase should destroy the comforting fiction that the DSA is merely seeking a slightly larger welfare state. [My emphasis]

America was founded on limited government, private property, individual liberty, religious freedom, and the right of citizens to live without being ruled by an all-powerful political class.

Socialism attacks every one of those principles.

You cannot claim to love America while working to eliminate the freedoms that make America worth loving. You cannot praise democracy while planning to make life intolerable until your opponents submit.

Believe them when they tell us what they intend to do.

What consequences should people face when political disruption crosses the line into intimidation, destruction, or organized lawlessness?

Source: Commentary magazine, “The Misery Strategy”

The Federalist Papers followed this up in the comments with;

The people calling themselves the enemies of the “ruling class” rarely intend to surrender power once they obtain it. 

This is true. Although the “Democratic” in Democratic Socialism refers to totalitarian democracy—the hideous idea that the right to vote is the most fundamental right that confers on elected politicians unlimited power to do as they please without restraint because they are elected—that same democracy that got Socialism elected can work in reverse, throwing the Socialists out of office. So while the Democratic Socialists (or any dictatorship) will claim their despotic policies are legitimate because instituted democratically, they’ll never submit their rule to voters for continuing validation. After HAMAS won election in Gaza under President Bush’s “Forward Strategy of Freedom,” it immediately canceled all future elections. 

That is why, once in power, the DSA will never allow free and fair elections. They will never allow themselves to be voted out of power. They will either abandon elections altogether or allow only rigged elections (Their advocacy for public funding of elections is a step in that direction). This has been true of Socialism from Vladimir Lenin to Nicolas Maduro. Why? Because elections require certain individual rights—rights to free speech and press, private campaign financing, dissent and opposing ideas, honest debate, association, one-man-one-vote, and so on. For Socialists, it’s not only about power. It’s about principle. They are collectivists. As the 20th Century Socialist Robert L. Heilbroner acknowledged, individual rights fundamentally conflict with Socialism’s collective moral goal—central planning—and thus cannot be allowed. 

Heilbroner, a leading Socialist intellectual and best-selling socialist writer of the 20th century, had no illusions about what Socialism requires. In a Dissent magazine essay titled What is Socialism, Heilbroner wrote:

The rights of individuals to their Millian liberties [are] directly opposed to the basic social commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal… Under socialism, every dissenting voice raises a threat similar to that raised under a democracy by those who preach antidemocracy.

In  The Nature and Logic of Capitalism by Heilbroner wrote; 

Political freedom in modern times has only appeared in capitalist states. Democratic liberties have not yet appeared in any nation that [is] fundamentally anti-capitalist, which is to say within the self-styled Marxist ambit. The . . . separation of realms [politics and economics] creates the essential conditions for political freedom because the state cannot enforce its will though economic sanctions, such as denying work to political dissidents.

Heilbroner also noted that “democratic liberties have not yet appeared, except fleetingly, in any nation that has declared itself to be fundamentally anticapitalist.”

Bolshevik  Communist Vladimir Lenin, the first head of the Soviet Union, banned all other parties and oppositions, internal Communist Party factions, an independent press, and free, fair, and open elections, on the principle that open dissent acted as a counter-revolutionary danger. Socialists use the liberties of free, Capitalist-oriented nations to come to power, then ban those liberties. Socialists can exploit capitalism’s “tolerance of dissent” to gain power, Heilbroner explains in What Is Socialism?, but then must not allow dissent to undermine their power. Once in power, socialists must understand that

Dissents, disagreements, and departures from norms then assume a far more threatening aspect than under bourgeois society, for they hold out the possibility of destroying the very commitment to a moral consensus by which socialist society differs from capitalist.

Nor can we wriggle off this hook by asserting that, among its moral commitments, socialism will choose to include the rights of individuals to their Millian liberties. For that celebration of individualism is directly opposed to the basic socialist commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal.

We can also dispel the delusion that Socialist rule can be anything but total. I quote Heilbroner from What Is Socialism? Page 344:

Socialists have always railed against the invidious striving of the market that forces individuals to subordinate their full personalities to narrow economic roles. Moreover, it is not only the motivations of capitalists that are at stake. . . The issue is the motivation of working people. For the market mechanism is not merely a means to profit. It is also a means to individual betterment by the maximization of one's income. Without this drive, the mechanism will not work. 

But is the drive for private gain compatible with the goal of socialism? I do not see how it can be. The market system, in order to function, requires attitudes of self-seeking that are in direct conflict with the goal of an "other-oriented" society. If socialism seeks to avoid both the anarchy and alienation of capitalism, it must seek to break the hold of the market, not merely over the economy but over the mind.' [Emphasis added.]

Get that? “. . . over the mind,” not only of capitalists but of working people. This is what Socialists mean when they express concern for the “working class”—to break their minds, and spirits, so as to make them “other-oriented” rather than strivers for self-betterment.

This dispels the notion that Socialism is for “working people.” This dispels the notion that Socialism is “only about economics.” Note, again, Romer’s choice of words—”until we are able to fully seize power ourselves.” fully seize power. Clearly, she’s not referring to elective power, which in America is limited. She’s referring to the day after the Democratic Socialists win electoral control of the presidency and Congress—at which point, Hitler style, they end the Constitutional checks on government power, abandon the Declaration of Independence, and establish—seize—full despotism, thus ending rightful liberty in America. That’s why there has never been—not in Soviet Russia; not in Red China; not in Castro’s Cuba; not in North Korea; not in modern Venezuela; not anywhere full Socialism has been established—anything but one-party totalitarianism under Socialism—and philosophically and logically never can be.

RELATED:

QUORA: ‘Would socialism be constitutional in the U. S.?’

Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'

QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’

Ralph Peters: “Mesmerized by Elections, We Forgot Freedom”, my essay for The Objective Standard

Mesmerized by Elections, the NJ Star-Ledger Forgot that Tyranny is Tyranny

Democratic Socialism: The Left Escalates America’s Journey to Totalitarianism

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter