I used to work for a man who continued to campaign for Harold Stassen.  It's great to meet an author who understands what the Grand Old Party was before it became a "product" instead of an ideal.  Right upfront:  I'm an FDR Democrat. 

So let's have a conversation.  I infer that electing an MBA for president turned out badly in your way of thinking, Mr. Kephart.  Maybe Mr. Bush just didn't understand what they teach about business.  "The bottom line" for the current quarter is not the way to achieve long-term success--whether in the private or public sector--wouldn't you agree?

Your interest in the US being able to keep sovereignty is at the crux of why the summit of November 15 is important.  With the issue of sovereignty comes another one of hegemony.  Please write more about the summit, and I will look for your articles.  This is the grownup issue youth of today do not have a chance to study in high school, in my opinion.

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2911 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 1859 comments [100 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:08:09 AM

  (0+)

Margaret:

 You are very perceptive. I am a very different "Republican" from those typically on display these days. To put it simply, I'm an idealist... not an idealogue. One of my favorite teachers in high school, George Greenwood, was a dyed in the wool FDR fan. We used to have vigorous debates (some might say arguments) about his social programs. No matter how heated they got, they usually ended up with a smile and maybe even a hug.

In retrospect, I think FDR was probably, almost certainly, the right man for the times.

I have many truly liberal friends  and we enjoy a close political discourse. I'd love to find a source of information on what the Republican party was like before I was born in 1950.

If you really want to know more about me and my opinions, here's the link to my old Senate campaign website:

http://www.samkephart.com/Old_Site_2008/ 

I have an in-depth bio, videos, links to articles, etc. All of my content is my own work product. No one wrote any of it for me.

Enjoy!

Best,

Sam Kephart 

by Samuel R. Kephart (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:25:07 AM

  (0+)

You have no idea what socialism is.  In fact, you are so far off the mark it hardly seems worth the effort to correct your misperceptions.  But here are some quick definitions.  Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers performing that production.  Fascism is the merger of government and capitalist elites (or corporations) in order to better exploit the workers producing within the means of production. 

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:21:33 AM

  (0+)

You are correct.

However, in the minds of most Americans, Europe is "socialist" not "fascist". And we are headed for a European-style system, unless there is an intervention of some kind... which I doubt.

 It's interesting to note that you were more interested in making my distinctions wrong, than adding any comment to my concerns.

Sam Kephart 

by Samuel R. Kephart (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:30:52 AM

  (0+)

He simply points out that since you have know idea what you are talking about, your conclusions are profoundly suspect.  You simply assume that somehow, in and of itself, socialism is "bad" (M'kay?), and something to be feared.  It is an excellent example of how fear comes from ignorance.

Europe's a nice place; healthy, happy citizens, social tolerance, functioning popular governance, low crime and respectful police.  Not to mention a healthier attitude toward sex.  A regular socialist hell, huh?

by Stokey Pipes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 10:26:28 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Pipes.  I could not have put it better myself.  An argument that proceeds from false premises inevitably leads to false conclusions.  That said, there may be a kernel of truth in the article.  Since America's manufacturing base has been moved overseas, yet the U.S. taxpayer has continued to bear the cost of the armed forces needed to protect that industrial base, without the commensurate benefit of the jobs derived from it, the U.S. has become primarily a service sector ecomomy.  That means we no longer produce true wealth:  commodities.  Some say we produce information as a commodity, but the sale of information is for the most part a one time sale.  Since we can no longer produce wealth, we must exist on ever increasing debt to maintain our standard of living.  At some point, accounts must be settled, and it appears that now is that time.  Hence the IMF and the WTO will soom impose the draconian economic rules on us that they have previously imposed on bankrupt nations like Argentina and Brazil.  This action will not be for the benefit of the Western European nations, which will remain relatively strong due to their partial socialization, but for the multinationals, which need a larger army to defend their international interests and want to cut the overhead it costs to keep unproductive Americans living in the style to which they have become accustomed. 

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:15:30 PM

  (0+)

Utopia Can Not Be Obtained Because Evil Exists.

Morality Can Not Be Mandated.

When you limit the data to instances that only support your paradigm you can come to any conclusion.

It comes down to force or voluntary.  I am all for International Standards; I Am Completely Against International Mandates.

There is no incentive for the exceptional under a “Socialist/Communist” style system.  Sure their can be existence and a mundane continuance.  There is little if any innovation from it though.

The author of this article is right to suspect that this world wide financial catastrophe may threaten our sovereignty.  Who ever dictates the creation of money can buy governments.

The biggest issues we face as humanity are:

1.  Money Creation And Its Influence On Policy.

2.  Who Ever Counts And Reports The Vote Totals Decides The Elections.

3.  Who Ever Educates The Children Controls The Future – What the mind is fed determines how it perceives.

I suggest that all people look into and understand the hierarchy of the Central Banking and Fractional Reserve System.  It is very possible that from the Bank Of International Settlements (BIS) will come the new seat of power in the world.  It is already been proposed by China, Italy, France, and others.

The Complexity Of Corruption Is Vast.

To Assume Benevolence IS Foolish.

Do not be fooled by the symptoms; the disease is intrinsic.

by Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [11 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:47:19 PM

  (0+)

National Socialism is crook controlled - not public controlled.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:43:57 AM

  (0+)

I find these days ppl swallow the definitions of the neocons and shock jocks like Glenn Beck and Rush. Their definitions are absolutley incorrect. Fascism is our governing method from Washington DC.

Denmark is a socialist country and indepth study of that country, will tell you how smooth their government and how "Happy" their ppl are. Btw, Denmark was rated with "the happiest ppl in the world" shown in an AOL study.

Fascism is exactly what FDR said, "Fascism is when corporations YIELD more power than Government". Government was--keyword--we the ppl, by the ppl (through representation of course). Corporations are ruling Congress (e.g., lobbyists, PAC's), us consumers, and most officials even at the local level to a degree.

The bottom line "my friends" is it's 'us verses the "Corporate King". From freedom to slavery is happening rapidly. I don't believe Europe is as great a threat to our sovereignty as corporations have ALREADY invaded that through several means. Public land grabs, public program capitalism (Medicare is corporately ran by Insurance Industry and Big Pharma--not Gov't) and even welfare programs, Justice dept "pre-trial supervision" equipment(prospering the corporation that makes/distributes the devices used--tasers, ankle bracelets, chips for prisoners, etc, etc etc). Please, name a gov't entity that assists in our military, oh, in case you can't here: BLACKWATER USA.

Our fear should be the Israeli Mossad and US CIA which is governing us all--already on a global scale. Believe me, an eye in the sky global scale.

You are just a slave as well as me, unless you are a millionaire. Then U B OK in this transitional one world crap to a degree.

Thanks for being a rational republican. I was once a Goldwater repub and rational. Reagan ruined it for me when he disassembled the meaning of the GOP and helped send it on this whacko extreme spending on a credit card fundamental religious right talibannish stuff. I'm the Liberalist of Liberals now, and freedom of civil liberties is the foundation of Liberal thought. Freedom is the root word of the Latin word for Liberal. It's what the ppl chose on Nov 4rth (Liberal leaning). However, will Obama go to bed with Israel's Mossad? Rahm is his Chief of Staff? Rahm fought in the Israel army. Rahm is rambo by nickname? Rahm is dual citizenship with Israel as Chertoff and many others are, Paulson spend the cash Henry, et al.

If we could have global socialism, then equality would be vast as even distribution lessons wage gab/ownership gap. Currently, 5 % of the 300 million population of America has ALL the money and 95% is slaving by to retain the little bit they have OR losing it as fast as I type...sinking and sinking leaving yet, more control for the Corporate Kings.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 10:56:05 AM

  (0+)

I am sorry Samuel but your ideas of socialism are nonsense.

The best society is a balance of socialism and free enterprise.

Socialism is where people work together for the common good.

Examples of this are governments, police, and fire departments, public health, etc.

Many things as noted above are better handled with people working together.

Nobody would suggest we all handle our police, or fire services ourselves.

by Rolland Miller (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments [78 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 11:18:12 AM

  (0+)

Sam, I agree that your definition of socialism is not accurate. I must protest to the socialist label applied to any government program.  Perhaps this will convince you that government is not all bad and worldwide regulation and oversight is in fact necessary to improve efficiency and effectiveness in business and prevent exploitation and abuse.

Manufactures and drug companies use to have to satisfy multiple regulatory bodies in multiple countries to sell their goods.  This meant re-doing much of the testing in each country they wanted to market a product in to satisfy individual regulators.  It was terribly expensive and excessively redundant process that became more problematic the more companies began to manufacture in one country but market in multiple countries.  Today there is International Harmonization of rules (ISO-9000) and laws that allow companies to do the research, testing and manufacturing by one set of rules that will satisfy everyone.  It cuts down on costs and waste and time getting products on the market.  That saves you money because the products can ultimately be produced for less.

China sold tainted milk that caused the death of hundreds of babies.  The tainted milk found its way outside of China to other countries because of the lack of enforced regulations and standards.  China manufactured toys with lead that got onto the US market last year. The US said they couldn't inspect every shipment from China and there was nothing to prevent this problem at its source.  Almost every year the US is affected by another food poisoning  associated with improper processing of food, often from outside this country where the FDA has no jurisdiction.

We didn't need global regulations or laws when we were an agrarian society, producing most of our own food and most of our own products. As the US grew and businesses began to make products for other people in the country and farmers started to produce food for multiple families, the US government began to regulate farms and business to ensure food and products were safe, manufactures were not exploiting laborers, that drugs were not adulterated with toxic substances and that people could have confidence in what they purchased. Today, we import, interact and use the products and resources of other countries (food, drugs, cars, money, toys, appliances, etc.), and it has become more and more essential to know people in other countries are playing by the same rules we expect our own manufactures and suppliers to adhere.  You can always decrease the cost of products by adulterating them, or using inferior quality parts or re-cycled parts (as has happened in the electronics industry).  However, as a consumer you don't want to discover this for yourself.  You want to select the best product for the least money based on differences in competition and efficiency, not abuse, adulteration or poor quality control.

Globalization and internationalization of rules and regulations is not a conspiracy or socialism.  It reflects the reality of dealing with a world in which more and more nations depend upon one another for products, services and resources.  It might seem like an onerous thing to have somebody in another country setting standards, rules and regulations you may have to follow in the US, but in fact it levels the playing field in international business so everyone has to conform to the same standards of conduct.  Cheaters are fined, punished or simply denied access to markets.  The end result is worldwide competition where price is based on efficiency, effectiveness and quality instead of cheating, abuse and exploitation. 

If you don't think the US needs to be part of better worldwide financial system of oversight, you haven't been paying any attention to how the concocted abuses in the US financial system have affected the entire world.  The US doesn't have to belong to any global financial regulatory group, but if the US decides to go it alone, it will be frozen out of world financial resources.  Those marketing vehicles and credit lines the US has used in the past to fuel its expansion of business, provide money for home purchases, sell Treasury bills and fund public bonds that pay for schools, sewers, water lines, roads and new construction.  The world financial groups will simply consider the US unworthy of the risk because of its inability or unwillingness to abide by the same regulatory controls needed to prevent abuse, exploitation and unnecessary risk to their financial systems.  

In the real world government plays a critical role in regulation of society and business. Government does this not because it is socialistic. Government does this because of the necessity to prevent exactly the types of problems we are experiencing now. Our mistake is to think we are an island independent and separate from the rest of the world instead of an integral member of the worldwide community.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:26:40 PM

  (0+)

Peter-

Thanks you for your thoughtful comments. I have taken them to heart.

I guess I'm just hugely frustrated that we've allowed "corporatism" (semi-benign fascism) to take over the world. I absolutely agree that capitalism, as generally practiced here in the US is selfish and destructive.

Years ago, in San Diego, I took some courses from a very interesting fellow (now dead) by the name of Dr. Andrew Galambos. He was the founder of the Free Enterprise Institute and quite a huge intellect in libertarian thought.

 I took several courses of his teaching an amazing philosophy caqlled "Moral Capitalism". It's capitalism with an insurance component built in that gets capitalism to "police itself ". 

Here's a link to a description of his basic premise of property:

click here it out. He was an amazing thought leader. 

Here's a brief biography written by Harry Brown; it's spot on.

click here Kephart 

by Samuel R. Kephart (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:08:16 PM

  (0+)

What we have now is under rewarded slaves - versa take it all elite glottons that do not earn anything, but manipulate for themselves what the slaves earn.  Bring it on, lets have a good democratic socialism without any of the elite's wars that are paid for by blood and labor of the working poor. 

by Philip Dennany (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:36:29 PM

  (0+)

There are two variants of "socialism" in the modern context;

One is "National Socialism", ie.: Nazism.

The second is; "International Socialism", Communism.

Neither represents the "Commons" which was the concept of shared weath, the "commonwealth" idea, that the framers of this nation had conceptualized.

All "Socialism" is based on state central power--not the concept of liberty which this nation fought the revolution for.

I will state again for the record, this nation was founded as a republic--not a democracy!!

Democracy is a tool of the elite, who control it's application through propaganda, perception manipulation and conditioning.

The fact that so many here cannot reconize the difference between a constitutional republic and a corporitist democracy speaks legions to the success of this virulent propaganda.

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:28:09 PM

  (0+)

William far right is facism not socialism.

Far left is Communism.

But socialism as viewed by many countries is neither communism, or facism, but socialism.

Many countries have various high or low % of their economies in socialism; governments of all kinds, police and fire departments, etc.

The best system is a balance of free enterprise, and socialism 

by Rolland Miller (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments [78 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:50:15 PM

  (0+)

Actually a Republic is a tool of the elite not a Democracy. There's no such thing as a corporatist democracy. In a democracy people vote on all issues by referendum. In a Republic the people choose their masters. Our Constitutional Republic was created by the aristocratic white male property owners for the sole benefit of the aristocratic white male property owners. A Republic is nothing more than a form of minority rule. In fact if America had a real Democracy we would likely have a socialist country by now instead of a fascist country. There can be no Democracy so long as Capitalism rules the country. Democracy and Socialism are the enemies of Capitalism and Fascism.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:02:04 PM

  (0+)

Cuba and North Korea are both Communist. I don't see anything Internationalist about them. There's no such thing as international socialism.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:08:23 PM

  (0+)