Stephen King’s Stand For Class Warfare

by | May 9, 2012

Unlike Stephen King, who seems to admit he’s a socialist, most Obama supporters will not admit to their socialism.

Count Stephen King, author of horror novels and a self-described millionaire, among the legions of rich socialists bringing down America.

Advancing ideas that are leading to real-life horror as America goes down the zero-growth road of a government-run economy, King seems to think we suffer from not too much socialism – but too little.

Says King:

“I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of [B.S.] persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America.

That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-f***g-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share.”

Elsewhere in his diatribe, King claims that well off people should have at least a 50 percent tax rate.

By what means did King arrive at 50 percent as a measurement of “fair share”? Why is 50 percent “fair” while 75 percent is not? Or 100 percent, for that matter? I’d love to know what arguments King would make against a 75 or 85 percent tax rate, for himself and others. If he would not be against a tax rate that high, then why doesn’t he propose it now?

There is no consistent or logical way to argue in favor of the Big Government redistributive state. In the end, it all reduces down to: communism. Or, if you prefer, collectivism. Collectivism is the ideology which claims that what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is yours. Marx said it best: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Millions have paid the price of economic stagnation, poverty and even bloodshed in the name of a “fair share.” America is quietly but decisively going down that very same road.

Think of America, or any society, as one big pot. Every penny you or I, or anyone, makes goes into that pot. The pot is divided up as authorities see fit. Which authorities? Who governs the authorities? By what means or right do they decide who is most in need and for what reasons? No answer is ever given. It’s just taken for granted that the approved authorities, such as Obama, are qualified, and the authorities not approved of, like poor Mitt Romney, are not qualified. Partisan bickering really has nothing to do with principle at all. It just boils down to which team gets to control and hand out the spoils of redistribution. How inspiring!

Unlike Stephen King, who seems to admit he’s a socialist, most Obama supporters will not admit to their socialism. They say, “The rich should pay their fair share. They should pay much more than they do now.” But they stop short of saying there should be one gigantic pot into which everybody throws everything.

We could raise taxes on the hated 1 percent who earn the most tomorrow, and it would not put a dent in the deficit as we know it. And this is even before ObamaCare goes into effect, and before all of the Baby Boom generation comes to claim their Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Hated non-socialists such as Rep. Paul Ryan are trying to project a budget that slows the rate of growth in Medicare and Social Security and perhaps balances the budget in a decade or five. Even for proposing such a thing the howls from the left (and even some Republicans) are beyond deafening.

None of this seems to matter. We truly live in a world gone mad. People like Obama speak in a calm and reasonable tone, and act as if there’s nothing wrong with a multiple trillion dollar deficit that is growing by the second, and can only grow into unsustainable debt even if the economy does rebound to a real growth rate (which has yet to happen).

Worse than that are the American people themselves. They blame the party in power for mismanagement. But how is any politician, of either party, to manage the impossible?

The rich cannot save us. The hatred against “the rich” (defined by Obama as anyone making $250,000 or more a year) is no different than the hatred against the Jews by Nazi Germany. No, there’s no proposal for concentration camps. But the hatred is just as real. The irrationality is just as real. A majority of Americans, or at least our cultural elites, seem to feel that if we could only punish the rich, all would be well. How is that any different than a majority of Germans, back in the 1920s and 1930s (as their economy floundered) feeling that if only the Jews were put in their place, all would be well?

The political left is the loudest to scream against discrimination, racism and hatred. But they’re quite selective in where they consider hatred acceptable or unacceptable They have singled out the “1 percent”

as somehow harming the rest of America merely for being successful. But why should anyone have to give up all or most of what they earn, merely because others demand or “need” it? King belittles that concept in his comments, but he never answers the question. He takes it as self-evident that everyone must pay their “fair share.”

What do socialists like Stephen King want? They’ve got Obama, the most genuine socialist (other than possibly FDR) to ever occupy the White House. They’ve got unprecedented spending, along with unprecedented debt, and it’s only going to grow. Government control over medical care, the automobile industry, the entire banking industry, and just about everything is growing. The military is being gutted, as even Obama’s own Defense Secretary has complained. Liberalism has won, it’s expanding and it’s not showing any signs of going anywhere. Things are getting worse, but liberalism is not expected to answer for it and Obama is favored for reelection.

So why are they still complaining? I guess you’d have to be a liberal to understand.

FEEL FREE TO SHARE
Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.

Related articles

Voice of Capitalism

Our weekly email newsletter.