Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s Defense Of Socialism Is Absolutely Pathetic

Hannah Bleau

Last night, President Trump went full #NeverSocialism. It was awesome.

Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of Venezuela, and its new interim President, Juan Guaido.

We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom — and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair.

Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country.

America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination and control.

We are BORN FREE, and we will STAY FREE.

Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country.

Bernie didn’t take it so well.

Actually, a lot of Democrats didn’t take it well, including Rep. Rashida Tlaib. She tried to “defend” socialism by accusing us all of not truly understanding it.

“I mean look, for me I think a lot of people don’t understand it [socialism]. I mean the library and the post office is socialism — so many of the things that we have in our country that we all value is very much based on those values of equality,” she said.

Ugh yeah. That ridiculous argument again.

For starters, basic functions of the government ≠ socialism. The basic EXISTENCE of the government ≠ socialism. Emphasis mine:

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, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

We’re not debating between anarchy and socialism, but this is an argument liberals make far too often. They’re all, “Wowowowow do you like getting mail? CONGRATS YOU LOVE SOCIALISM.”

Charles C.W. Cooke said it best. There was meme floating around touting the same dumb argument as Tlaib, hence the post. It’s from 2015 but still ridiculously relevant:

By this definition at least, the vast majority of the programs featured by the meme’s author are not “socialist” at all. Indeed, of the 55 items listed, I can count only a handful that have anything whatsoever to do with the abolition of private property, the nationalization of industry, the central planning of the economy, or “the governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution.” The vast majority are either “public goods” (i.e. “non-excludable” and “non-rivalrous” offerings such as the CIA, the FBI, the police, the military, the courts, street lights, public monuments, roads, sewers, etc.); quotidian government operations of the sort that are found in all political and economic systems (the Census Bureau); services that, in practice, can really only be provided or operated by the state (the IRS, the Secret Service, prisons, the White House); services that can feasibly be provided privately but toward which governments are inevitably tempted (NASA, the postal service, garbage collection); or welfare provisions that, while certainly redistributive in nature, are not necessarily “socialistic.”

The debate isn’t whether or not government should exist. The Founders, as I pointed out above, made it abundantly clear that it IS necessary. The debate is over the size and scope.

Bingo.

Wanna know what socialism looks like? Being forced to sell your hair and eating zoo animals for dinner.

h/t Twitchy