Hillary: It's the (lack of enough socialism in the) economy, stupid!

When Rodham-Clinton's husband began wee-weeing all over himself about communitarianism, Bear Review editor-in-chief Kevin Whited noted that communitarianism seemed to him to be nothing more than communism with a few extraneous letters thrown in.

Now Hillary has chosen to dredge up the old leftist resentment of the capitalist, laissez-faire "I'll take care of me; you take care of you" approach, in what I have dubbed the "It Takes A Socialist Village" speech:

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad [anti-]economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

My responsibility and prosperity are my own, Ms. Rodham. You and your fellow looters have no legitimate claim to a share in them.

When we're all in it together, Ms. Rodham, the "it" is invariably the toilet. The Soviets were all in it together, and their society collapsed. The Cubans are all in it together, and they are driving old American wrecks from the 1950's rather than manufacturing their own vehicles. The North Koreans are all in it together, and they are eating their children. These are not models I hope my country follows.

I'll take my America the way it is, thank you very much. And the way it is, or rather the way it used to be before your type came along, is free, liberty-loving, individual-rights-respecting, and capitalist. In other words, an ownership society.

More thoughts at Captain's Quarters and Blue Crab Boulevard.

[H/T 2 memeorandum.]
Ron Paul for President.