By Doc Wallace | Nov 07, 2019

Not so very long a go it was possible for people of divergent political views to live in relative harmony.  Republicans and Democrats had different perspectives on how the country should be governed, but their arguments could usually be settled with the understood maxim, Patriotic citizens have a common goal ― the spiritual, economic, and social well-being of this wonderful country, the United States of America.

How far we have fallen?  My father must be rolling over in his grave knowing how tribal we have become in our political interactions. As a Republican who had many Democratic associates, he would be horrified to see families split and erstwhile friends reject each other based solely upon their political views. Even in my own lifetime up until the last decade or so, political opponents could essentially agree to disagree.

Furthermore, we were more focused upon policies rather than personalities. Yes, we campaigned hard in presidential elections, but we focused on what our differences were in the platforms of each party. Contrast that with today’s obsession with the person.

Trump’s narcissism, Biden’s plagiarism, and Warren’s acculturation are personal flaws, but do they really provide the grounds for ignoring everything in the policy makeup of their respective parties?  I think not.  Regardless of which candidate prevails in each election (including this one), there will always be a mountain of policies, procedures and people who will drive the political path of this great country. That happened under Obama, and it is happening under Trump today.

So, let us talk about now. Indeed, this column presents a conservative view and I will do that. However, my focus is upon program, policy, and platform ― not person, personality, and persona. The obvious case in point here is the left’s hate of President Trump. Their virulent rage blinds them to even the most obvious successes of his term in office.

Median household income is up substantially, unemployment is at an all-time low, and the economy, by any measure, is booming. Times are good and the conservative platform of support for traditional Medicare, private health insurance, and Medicaid for the neediest presents a workable way forward for the success of the country. Yes, this is capitalism, and it has been the bedrock for American health and prosperity through the entire history of the U.S.A.

Contrast that with the Democrats’ clearest platform ― set out by Elizabeth Warren. Her ironically titled “Accountable Capitalism Act” sets forth an agenda, which by analyses on the left and right, is an impossible scheme so extreme that it could never be put in place. Even her “wealth tax” (which is likely unconstitutional) on the so-called rich cannot come close to funding Medicare for all, and would require punishing taxes on the middle class as well. Peggy Noonan summarized this disastrous plan best in her recent column where she wonders if Warren should ask herself, “If I win, will there be a country left?”

Yet, socialism, which has a world history of abject failure, has the mystifying support of some people. In a recent study, millennials supported socialism over capitalism by 70%! If that wrongheaded belief holds sway in the upcoming election, Noonan’s hypothetical question would have a stark answer ― we would be left with a country where political harmony will not exist.

Another View is a Maine Press Association award-winning column written by Midcoast conservative citizens/writers Jan Dolcater, Ken Frederic, Paul Ackerman, Ralph “Doc” Wallace and Dale Landrith Sr.

Comments (1)
Posted by: Ronald Horvath | Nov 10, 2019 10:11

"abject failure," Paul.  Tell that to most of the modern western nations all of whom have some form of socialist-capitalist economy.  And tell trump that paying off the victims of his trade wars with tax dollars is also socialist even if Republicans won't admit it.



"...  the (trump) administration’s latest attempts to gut the food-stamp program proves that while Trump’s brand of socialism may extend to farmers, it’s still not available for the working poor.

What remains interesting is how Republicans manage to reconcile their anti-socialist words with their Big Government actions.


Polling last fall from YouGov, for instance, found that Republicans overwhelmingly supported  Trump’s trade-war-driven farmer bailout, despite an avowed antipathy for “socialism.” A separate YouGov poll conducted this week asked respondents whether they considered various policies to be examples of socialism, such as free college tuition (according to Republicans: yes!), or Social Security and government medical care for veterans (both no, somehow). Medicare for the elderly is decidedly not  socialist, but something approximating Medicare for everyone definitely  is .


So maybe the problem isn’t hypocrisy, exactly. It’s that the word “socialist,” to Republicans at least, has evolved to mean anything the other side is for."



"Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman says there are no socialists among the Democratic candidates - not even Bernie. Most of the candidates are, instead, what Europeans would call "social democrats:"  advocates of private-sector-driven economy, but with a stronger social safety net, enhanced bargaining power for workers and tighter regulation of corporate malfeasance."

"Socialism isn’t fundamentally about public ownership of private resources. It is about collective action in pursuit of common goals, where private action has destroyed or damaged the common good. It is demonized by concentrated private wealth precisely because it is so effective at redressing so many of the problems that concentrated private wealth has inflicted on society and the world."

So, to Republicans, socialism -like everything else beneficial in government- is reserved only for those who don't really need it.

If you wish to comment, please login.