Madame Mao and Hillary Clinton
I think I’m beginning to see similarities between the two…
Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton is beginning to remind me of Jiang Qing, known as Madame Mao, Chairman Mao’s wife who played a prominent role in the Cultural Revolution of China. Clinton, ever famous for her book, ”It Takes a Village” - detailing her vision for the children of America - continues to promote her thinly veiled socialist agenda as she campaigns for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination.
Mitt Romney takes a jab at Ms. Clinton’s recent statement concerning her views for economic reform:
“Hillary Clinton just gave a speech the other day about her view on the economy. She said we have been an on-your-own society. She said it’s time to get rid of that and replace that with shared responsibility and we’re-in-it-together society,” Romney told the crowd. “That’s out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx.” - Romney Continues Assault on Democrats
Wasn’t it on Bill Clinton’s watch that nuclear secrets were being leaked to the Chinese? What if this couple lived during the McCarthy era? I wonder if they would have been hanged?
July 24th, 2007 at 5:16 am
I’ve been enjoying your blog for a few weeks now. However, there is a rift that opens up between many Catholics on this side of the Atlantic and your good selves in the USA. I’m just after some intelligent, Catholic debate on the following issues.
Please can you explain to me how you can be so sure that there is a natural, orthodox Catholic stance on politics? And why so many of you are sure it is Republican? Not that I have any time for the hypocritical Democrats either.
Beyond this, I want some intelligent discussion on why free-market politics is the only way forward. The market forces described by Adam Smith are based on a model of equilibrium chemistry that is seriously out of date. Chemical systems don’t behave like that, neither do markets. Unrestrained capitalism only really exists in places like Mogadishu, and you can’t call it a good thing. Also, have you forgotten that the Marxist solution to world economics is to let Capitalism run its course; let it feed itself on the world’s poor and increase the environmental and human misery and poverty we see around us. By championing market economics you are championing Marxism!
My hunch is that IF there is a Catholic “political system” it is feudalism. This is just so unpopular and “medieval” that maybe it is just right. What do you think?
July 24th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Rita - Thanks for your comments and questions. I must say I’m rather apolitical - neither Democrat or Republican, I think they are all opportunistic, self-serving rascals.
I am definitely not an economist, but there is much evidence to suggest that market economics indeed has exploited the world’s poor and natural resources for short term prosperity and affluence. And that debt appears to be in the process of being called in, what with the fossil fuel crises we seem to be experiencing.
In the 19th and early 20th century, the Church still continued to support monarchy. Some traditional Catholics believe Distributism is the way to go - I’m not qualified to speak to these issues however.
As for this post - I simply do not like Hillary Clinton and really do think she is about as rotten to the core as Madame Mao was. Nevertheless, I don’t think much of the other candidates either. I certainly don’t want another Born Again Christian like Bush, who believes God is telling him to go to war.
Thanks for your comments. You may be right about feudalism - popular or not - it may be the only alternative after everything else collapses.
Check out Athanasius Contra Mundum - it is a blog listed in my sidebar - he is much more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am. He has a few posts concerning Distributism and feudalism that are quite good.
July 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Rita, I’ve never seen this as a “Repblicath” blog, but I think you’re right about the majority of American Catholic bloggers.
Cardinal George of Chicago once said that all Americans, including American Catholics, were at heart Calvinists. I think this explains the rift you describe.
July 25th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Thanks for your comments. I think I was just getting paranoid. One minute I’m getting on fine with the comments on an American Catholic blog or discussion forum and the next minute it erupts into a stream of self-righteous “repiblicath” pontification (with a very small “p”). This can be a little depressing as there is only so much one can fight.
Yup, I think I’m safe here and for that Deo Gratias!
July 25th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Rita - Thanks - I forgot about Western Confucian - you will like his blogspot - he is much smarter than I am.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“That’s out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx.” is a statement too reductive and silly to be of any use to anyone. I guess he really was a manufactured candidate, or at least one who appealed mostly to the simple minded.
Of itself, the idea of a “we’re-in-it-together society” is the only one that would be worth living in, imo.