The Politics of Greed: The Political Scene :: By Dr. David Reagan

Our formerly great political system has deteriorated to the point where politicians are now appealing primarily to greed by attempting to purchase votes. Just consider the current promises that presidential candidates are making:

  • The forgiveness of all college loans.
  • A guarantee of free college education in the future.
  • The provision of reparations to all descendants of slaves.
  • A promise of reparations to same-sex couples.
  • A pledge of universal medical care.
  • The gift of a $1,000 savings account for each new baby.
  • The provision of free child care.
  • A guaranteed job for every person.
  • A guaranteed minimum income.
  • The Illusion of “Free Stuff.”

This insane list goes on and on. All the candidates seem to be yelling, “Free stuff! Free stuff! Vote for me and get free stuff!”

And people are responding like cows running to a fresh bale of hay. It’s a sad scene of unmitigated greed.

And who is going to pay for all this “free stuff”? The answer of the mob is, of course, “Someone else, but certainly not us.”

It reminds me of what H. L. Menken once wrote when he characterized elections as “an early auction on stolen goods.” George Bernard Shaw put it this way: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.”

Modern-day commentator Louis DeBroux has summed it up this way:

Of course, anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows nothing is free. Every good or service is produced at a cost, and producers demand to be paid. So [politicians], while promising you free stuff, are really promising to make your neighbor pay for it.

Covering the Price Tag

So, if the greedy masses are not going to pay for all the “free stuff,” then how is it to be financed? The solutions being put forward are: “tax the rich,” “tax the corporations” and “print money.”

Did you know that you really cannot tax a corporation? That’s because when you put taxes on a corporation, the response is always one of three things or a combination of them:

  1. Freeze or lower wages.
  2. Reduce the dividends to investors.
  3. Raise prices to the consumers.

The most frequent choice is, of course, to raise prices. In any case, it is people who end up paying the taxes.

So, what about slapping a 70% tax on the rich — or even 90% as FDR did? This is always self-defeating because such high tax rates curtail investment, resulting in a reduction in business activity. And that, of course, means a massive loss of jobs. This is one of the main reasons that the economic downturn in 1929 morphed into The Great Depression.

The Socialist Congresswoman from New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has dismissed all the concern about cost by simply proposing that we “print money.” That is the prescription for a runaway inflation which would destroy the value of all savings.

Political Protection

The politics of greed is the inherent weakness of pure democracy. It will always end up destroying the democratic system.

Our Founding Fathers were very aware of this problem because they believed in the biblical view of Mankind — namely, that people are born with a sin nature and therefore cannot be trusted.

As we all know, they rejected monarchy. What is amazing is that they also rejected Oligarchy (the rule of the privileged). The reason that is remarkable is because most of them were aristocrats. But the point is that they did not even trust themselves. Nor did they believe in pure democracy because they did not trust the Common Man. They knew that pure democracy always evolved into mobocracy.

So, they established a Representative Democracy whereby, hopefully, enlightened persons with high morals and great wisdom would be elected to represent the masses.

This is why they insulated the federal government from the direct vote of the people. They accomplished this by making only members of the House of Representatives eligible for direct election. Senators were appointed by state legislatures. And the President was selected by an Electoral College whose members were, in turn, selected in any manner a state might choose.

The Erosion of Political Protection

Over time, this system of political protection from mobocracy has eroded. Consider, for example, the selection of members of the Electoral College. At the beginning, electors in about half the states were selected by the legislatures; in the other states they were selected by popular vote. A trend toward popular election picked up fast, and by 1832, only South Carolina was still appointing electors.

Today, despite the fact that all members of the Electoral College are selected by popular vote, there are increasing demands that the College itself be abolished so that the President can be elected directly.

Meanwhile, the same trend toward direct election characterized the selection of Senators, leading up to the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913 which mandates their popular election.

Other roadblocks to mobocracy and the politics of greed which our Founding Fathers instituted were states’ rights and the brilliant system of separation of powers and its built-in checks and balances — a concept based on the Scriptures (Isaiah 33:22).

States’ rights have almost disappeared over the years due to the centralization of power in the national government. And likewise, the separation of powers has been undermined by the focusing of power in the presidency.

The barriers to the mob mentality are the reason our Constitution has continued to exist to this day — longer than any other constitution in history. But those days appear to be numbered.

The “Progressive” Agenda

The “Progressives” want no barriers to “the will of the people,” regardless of how perverted that will may be. So they are advocating the abolition of the Electoral College and a scheme to pack the Supreme Court with judicial activists who have no respect for our Constitution.

Concerning the Supreme Court, it comes as a surprise to most people that the number of justices on the Court is not specified in the Constitution. Six times in America history, Congress has changed the size of the Supreme Court by either increasing or decreasing the number of justices — each time for political reasons.

“Power to the people!” That’s the politically correct cry of today. It sounds so good, but it results in horrors like the French Revolution because there is no magical goodness in the people or in the majority vote.

The current attempts to abridge freedom of religion should be sobering to all those who think “the majority knows best.” The same is true of increasing attempts to broaden hate legislation to include any speech against abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality or any other perversion, like pedophilia, which the majority may decide to endorse.

The Nature of the Crisis

The question looming before the American electorate is whether or not we are willing to sell our souls and our freedoms for “free stuff.” I believe we are.

Keep in mind that in the last presidential election, the future of our nation — the Millennials — overwhelmingly supported Bernie Sanders, an out-and-out Socialist, and when he failed to get the nomination, they voted for Hillary. Remember too, that Hillary received three million more votes than Trump. The only reason Trump is our President is because of the Electoral College which the Liberals and Socialists are determined to abolish.

The most sobering thing to keep in mind is that all the recent polls reveal that only 9% of Americans have a biblical worldview, and only 15% of professing Christians can be characterized as “Bible-believing.”

Our nation’s glory days are over. We are destined for destruction, and the fundamental reason is that we have forgotten about God.

“You have forgotten the God of your salvation and have not remembered the rock of your refuge” (Isaiah 17:10).


The Immorality of Socialism :: By David Reagan

The Rise and Fall of Socialism in America

The Socialist Party of America was founded in 1901. It received support from trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and various immigrant groups. But it never did well at the polls, particularly in presidential elections. And its staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I resulted in a large number of defections.

The best showing ever for a Socialist ticket was in 1912, when their candidate, Eugene Debs, received 901,551 total votes, or 6% of the popular vote. In 1920 Debs ran again, this time from prison, and received 913,693 votes, 3.4% of the total.

Socialism rebounded in the 1930s during the Great Depression under the leadership of Norman Thomas, but President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, which introduced America to Welfare-Statism, prevented Socialism from gathering much steam. Later, the party’s opposition to American involvement in World War II cost it much of its support.

The party stopped running presidential candidates after 1956 when its nominee won fewer than 6,000 votes. The party decided, instead, to focus its efforts on educational programs. In the early 1970s the party splintered into three main groups, and the original party changed its name to Social Democrats, USA.

The Resurrection of Socialism in America

It was therefore startling to most people when Newsweek magazine proclaimed on the cover of its February 6, 2009 issue that “We Are All Socialists Now.” As proof, the magazine pointed to the fact that the U.S. government had already — under a conservative Republican administration — effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. The writer of the cover article then asserted, “Whether we want to admit it or not…the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.”

How can this resurrection of Socialism be explained? It relates to the rapid secularization and paganization of American society in recent years, especially since the election of President Barack Obama in 2008.

Socialism always flourishes in a secular society. And the reason is simple. Here’s how Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union explained it in a recent article: “…Socialism goes hand in hand with abandoning God and worshiping the idol of an ever-growing government.”1

And that’s how United States Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an openly avowed Socialist, won more than 12 million votes in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries — by promising that government would become the National Nanny by providing every need. He promised free college, free health care and another $10 trillion in federal spending. When considering such reckless promises, Robert Knight asks, “What’s not to like if you view government as an ATM machine for all your needs?”2 Or, to put it another way, “Who needs God when government will supply everyone’s needs at someone else’s expense?”3

The Competing Systems

There are really only two types of social organization — collectivism and individualism. In the 20th Century, collectivism took many forms, such as Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Welfare Statism and Communism. The alternative system, and the only one compatible with individualism and freedom, is Capitalism.

Collectivist systems like Socialism rely on state power to forcibly redistribute wealth. These systems amount to legalized theft. C. Bradley Thompson, who is a professor at Ashland University and a staff member at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, has summarized Socialism brilliantly as a ruling system that “uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class.”4

Defenders of Socialism always try to present themselves as compassionate people who care for the underprivileged. They characterize Capitalism as a dog-eat-dog system that produces inequities, with great disparities between the rich and the poor. Thompson responds to these arguments as follows:5

Yes, there are winners and losers in Capitalism. The winners are those who are honest, industrious, thoughtful, prudent, frugal, responsible, disciplined and efficient. The losers are those who are shiftless, lazy, imprudent, extravagant, negligent, impractical and inefficient. Capitalism is the only social system that rewards virtue and punishes vice.

Thompson then sums up his whole argument against Socialism by saying, “Simply put, Socialism rewards sloth and penalizes hard work, while Capitalism rewards hard work and penalizes sloth.”6

The Need for Common Sense

The young people who are swarming to Senator Sanders’ support are a spiritually bankrupt generation who view government as God. They are also a greedy generation that desires “free stuff.”

And they are obviously ignorant of economics and are hard up for common sense, for one of the facts of life is that there are no free meals. Thus, if government gives you a “free” education, you will spend the rest of your life paying exorbitant, confiscatory taxes to cover the cost of that education and the “free” educations of those who follow you. I guess the problem with common sense is that it is not very common.

David Reagan: I guess the problem with common sense is that it is not very common.CLICK TO TWEET

Considering Scripture

Some liberal Christian spokesmen have tried to defend Socialism on the grounds that the early Church in Jerusalem practiced Socialism as described in Acts 2:44-45:

44) And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common;

45) and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

Yes, the early Christians, who were severely persecuted, banded together in communal groups to help defend and support each other, but that is a far cry from Socialism. The key here is that they shared their goods of their own free will. No one forced them to do so.

In like manner today, I give a lot of my income to many ministries, churches and social welfare organizations that provide food, clothing and even lodging to poor people. But I do so willingly as an expression of my love of Jesus. No one forces me to do so.

Again, the Socialists utilize the power of the State to force people to give to others through policies that result in a forced redistribution of income. And that is theft, pure and simple. Their desire is to make people dependent on the State because such dependence, in turn, will provide the Socialists with ever greater power over people’s lives.

One interesting thing in this regard that I have noticed over the years is that when Socialist politicians are forced to reveal their income tax returns, they never show any significant donations to help the poor. No, these “compassionate” liberals want to help the poor with your money and mine — not theirs.

David Reagan: Compassionate liberals want to help the poor with your money, not theirs. #capitalismCLICK TO TWEET

Insights About Socialism

Rupert Murdoch, the British media mogul, recently gave a speech about the virtues of Capitalism. In the process, he made a very insightful comment about Socialism:7

Socialism is a form of feudalism. The Lord is the State and the Aristocracy which rises up around the State…The serfs are the same people who have always been serfs throughout history. Socialism doesn’t save anyone from working for the company store. Government just becomes the company store.

Winston Churchill always had a pithy way of presenting profound ideas in brief statements. Here’s what he had to say about Socialism as compared to Capitalism: “The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”8

One blogger, who chooses to remain anonymous, has this to say about the morality of Socialism:9

Socialism is immoral at its core [because] it requires an acceptance that the government owns you, that when the rubber hits the road, you are simply a number, and that if you are more productive than most other people, you will be replaced as a cash cow to be milked for what some group of Statists consider “The Common Good.”

History attests to the fact that people are always willing to surrender their freedoms for the promise of security. That is exactly what Socialism does. Beware!


1) Robert Knight, “Embracing the Socialist,” www.washingtontimes. com, February 14, 2016, page 1.

2) Ibid.

3) Ibid., page 3.

4) C. Bradley Thompson, “Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System?”, October 1993, page 2.

5) Ibid.

6) Ibid., page 3.

7) Nick Sorrentino, “Socialism fails because it is largely immoral in its denial of fundamental freedoms,”, April 22, 2013, page 2.

8) Anonymous, “On Taxes and Socialism,”, page 4.

9) Ibid.