My blog-friends at geeeeeZ recently enlightened me by posting the words of William J. H. Boetcker; since it prompted me to write this post, I want to acknowledge Z’s contribution to my thinking process, and add that her site is a worthwhile daily read.

We cannot help but note that the socialists in America tend to deliver frequent lectures about social compassion; and it is difficult for a thinking individual not to have compassion toward those less fortunate than ourselves. The fact is, when compared to most other nations, Americans are among the world’s most charitable people. This tells me most of us care about the suffering of others, and that we do something about it. In spite of this, people from around the world (along with our own homegrown socialists) tell us we need to do more – in the minds of some, there is never enough charity, never enough “social compassion.”

Interestingly, while socialist programs tout compassion, their product is very different from true kindness. It leads one to form one of two conclusions: either socialists do not understand human nature, or if they do, their motives are questionable. In my mind, compassion for others is not unlike responsible parenting, following the “tough love” approach. Some times, the word “no” is another way of expressing concern and love. The good parent will be intolerant of unacceptable behavior and reward and reinforce positive conduct. A good parent will hold his or her children accountable, and teach them that there are consequences (both good and bad) for the decisions they make. Reams of social statistics strengthen this concept on both sides of the coin; absentee or permissive parenting produces an unseemly result.

Progressive programs are always advertized as the right thing to do, and on the surface, a reasonable person might agree. After all, what’s a mere 2% increase in some tax to support a socialist idea that will make someone’s life easier? But there are two problems: first, there is a cumulative effect to government taxation, and the second is that more often than not, progressive programs fail to produce the advertised result. Sixty years of welfare and food stamp programs accomplished little more than successive generations of “needy” people (who just happened to become staunch Democrats). Government mandated desegregation of schools turned high performing all-black schools into underfunded ghetto failures. Compassionate “understanding” provides healthcare services to illegal immigrants, with a consequence of skyrocketing medical costs for Americans Worst of all, progressive education has done little more than produce the world’s dumbest children, who grow up to regard big government as an entitlement.

There is no socialist program in our country today that is able to pass the test of scrutiny. I used to worry about the prevalence of the “sky is falling” science children learn in public schools. It doesn’t concern me quite as much since I learned two things: (1) Ominous environmental warnings are so frequent that no one is paying attention any more, and (2) students only capture about 20% of what they’re taught anyway. But if one carries that “sky is falling” mindset forward into the adult years, we note only one significant change: socialist government cannot resist levying taxes against fallacious hypotheses – global warming, climate change phenomena, endangered species. The fact is, socialists are mislabeled as progressives . . . if anything, they are regressive.

Boetcker (1876-1962) made extraordinary sense – something we have not received from politicians since the Constitutional Convention. His “Ten Cannots” should be framed in every congressional office in every legislature to serve as a reminder that American citizens expect (and should demand) that their elected representatives be infused with as much common sense as they are with an ability to read the law. After you’ve read Boetcker’s good advice, think about all the ways government officials discourage thrift, count the times every single day when you hear a socialist dividing Americans according to wealth, race, or gender. We should not be amazed that these so-called do-gooders (nee socialists) never find the time to feel ashamed; that’s because they aren’t.

My thesis is that socialists are no more concerned about social compassion than they are about saving the earth (whatever that means). I contend that socialists employ the concept of “social compassion” as a political placebo, to convince Americans to forfeit their rights and dignity to government oversight. Consider Nancy Pelosi’s demand for a so-called “fairness doctrine;” it is no more than an underhanded attempt to stifle opinion and free speech, something already accomplished in several European countries and in Canada. Consider too the recent statement by socialist Diane Feinstein (D, CA) when it was announced that the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms: “I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window.” Feinstein despicably ignores the precedent established by the Second Amendment in 1791; she would prefer that only the government have guns.

True social compassion does not discriminate against future generations of minorities by enslaving them to government dependency, nor does a compassionate program postulate that people are entitled to someone else’s hard-earned money. Compassion does not obligate citizens to support their families while concurrently paying for programs that benefit illegal aliens. Honest concern for the welfare of children does not support issuing birth control pills to eleven-year-old girls in public school, or provide needles and condoms to high school students. If socialist politicians truly cared about the “pain” people are experiencing today with respect to gasoline prices, this country would have a cogent energy policy.  

Social compassion is in the nature of the American people. We think it is appropriate to reach out to truly needy people, to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. Rather than relying upon the conscience of the American public, however, socialist government seeks to assume this responsibility for us (and they are succeeding). Social compassion begins with a sense of obligation each of us has toward one another, and it extends out to the needy within our communities. Nonprofit charities and community chests are ideal because they help to care for people by name, not by number – but this is not what socialists want. They will decide for us what programs to support, and how much we’ll pay to support them. This is not freedom; it is government tyranny disguised as “compassion.”

I do think that socialism is good for one thing: fooling millions of Americans about the costs and benefits of “compassionate” programs. Do we suppose, even for a moment, that socialist run public schools are only accidentally producing the world’s dumbest people? There is no better way to control 300 million citizens than by creating generations of those who think government control is an entitlement program.