Posted by
William D. Dannenmaier on Sunday, April 05, 2009 10:39:52 AM
In a speech given during the primaries in New Hampshire, Barack Obama said, “We won’t just win in New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we’re going to change the country and change the world.” (Toby Hamden, Telegraph.co.uk) Do we really want that?
I have lived long enough to be aware of and read about other leaders who have decided to “change the world.” Some called themselves Communists and some called themselves Socialists, which has always struck me as different labels on the same can of beans. In both cases, the leaders of a powerful federal government decide what is best for other people.
The first of these in modern times was Lenin, and he did change his country, he effectively destroyed a fledgling democracy. His word was Communism, an idea in which all the power belonged to the people, but in reality rested in him and a powerful, privileged, leadership. Then he was ousted by Stalin, who used military power to take over Russia and much of Eastern Europe. In the process, he killed hundreds of thousands who opposed him. As his power spread in Europe, the number killed increased to millions, mostly among the working middle-class. But the indolent and the criminal classes did not profit either, he established re-education camps in Siberia, where they learned to work for a living – or starve.
A second person who set out to change his country and the world was Hitler. His dogmatism was Socialism. (Nazi stood for “National Socialist Party.) Following his election to leadership in the then Democracy of Germany, he used his goon squads to silence dissidents: early victims, who were imprisoned and executed, included the handicapped, Masons, peace loving Christians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and more than 800 Protestant ministers. Finally he turned his attention to the Jews. It was all for the good of the nation. He and those about him knew what was good for all. The consequence was catastrophe for Europe.
Mao knew what was best for the people of China. He executed over twenty million Chinese and, over the years, led the nation into poverty. It was only after his death, with the slow introduction of capitalism, which permits people to decide for themselves what is best for them, that prosperity returned for many, but it has been slow.
Castro promised change. He was young, handsome and an excellent speaker – like Hitler. The people of Cuba needed change, and supported him. It was only after he gained control of the nation that they realized they no longer enjoyed the freedom to determine their own lives. Castro knew what was best. More than a million fled the nation and the others now live in poverty. Not, of course, the leadership. As in all Socialist (Communist) nations, the leaders live privileged lives in prosperity.
Now Chavez has decided he knows what is best for Venezuela. Young, handsome and an excellent speaker, he won leadership. At first, the country prospered as Chavez reaped the profits of capitalism, now it is sinking into economic despair as industry after industry is taken over and directed by the government, but Chavez and the elite with whom he has surrounded himself still know what is best – and prosper.
Now we have Obama. Like Lenin, Hitler, Castro and Chavez, Obama is young, handsome and a marvelous speaker. He has been quoted as saying he will change the nation and the world. All of the major media supported him, and he won the Presidency. This has made me wonder how he might be expected to change the nation – and the world. This worries me.
Isn’t it interesting that the only small group of men who actually changed the world had no desire to do so? Who were they? Our founding fathers: Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Monroe, among others. They only wanted freedom from tyranny and the right for people to have the freedom to run their own lives. This is why our Constitution so rigidly restricts the rights of the Federal Government. They succeeded! And their ideas spread from the United States to France, then throughout Europe and, to a limited extent, Central and South America. This acceptance of “people power,” democracy, brought wealth and power to the United States and to the European nations. But democracy is a fragile institution, it lasts only as long as voters think and vote for the right to determine their own lives. It permits people to succeed, but it also permits people to fail. It’s like that old song, “Love and Marriage:” you can’t have one without the other.