"CARACAS, Sept 30 (Reuters) - With both presidents facing
tight re-election fights, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez gave a
surprise endorsement to Barack Obama on Sunday - and said the
U.S. leader no doubt felt the same.
"I hope this doesn't harm Obama, but if I was from the
United States, I'd vote for Obama," the socialist Chavez said of
a man he first reached out to in 2009 but to whom he has since
generally been insulting.
"Obama is a good guy ... I think that if Obama was from
Barlovento or some Caracas neighborhood, he'd vote for Chavez,"
the president told state TV, referring to a poor coastal town
known for the African roots of its population.
Chavez is one of the world's most strident critics of
Washington and his 14 years in office have been characterized by
diplomatic spats and insults at the White House."
From Fox News
"And Russian President Vladimir Putin -- who is back in Moscow's
driver's seat after a stint as prime minister -- has said the reelection
of Obama could improve political relations between the two countries.
He also reportedly called Obama a “genuine person" who "really wants to change much for the better."
Very interesting. This isn't splitting-the-atom kind of news, but it is interesting and worth knowing. Presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Coolidge, and Reagen doubtfully would have received praise, compliments, and endorsements from collectivists, don't you think?
What is a collectivist? Socialism, fascism, and communism fall under the political philosophy of collectivism. The Encyclopedia Britannica succinctly describes collectivism as: "...any
of several types of social organization in which the individual is
seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a
nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with
individualism, in which the rights and interests of the individual are
emphasized." and "...in such movements as socialism, communism, and
fascism. The least
collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the
inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation,
redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public
ownership. In communist systems collectivism is carried to its furthest
extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned
Collectivists don't like humans being unequal in their talents, abilities, size, and intelligence. They don't like that sports stars make a lot of money because they're talented in sports instead of working 40 plus hours a week in a cubicle for "the man." You hear them say stuff like "Is it fair that football players make as much as money as they do?" I ask, "Are you going to the games? Are you buying his merchandise? Is the stadium taking money out of your account to pay for the expenses?" I usually get a response like, "No! I hate football!" I then reply, "What's it to you then?"
They (collectivists) understand "all men created equal" to mean something like all men being equal materially, in their health, and outcome of happiness instead of all men being equal in their natural rights of life, liberty, and property. The latter means that all men are equal in the state of nature which is a philosophical term for man's natural state. Man in his natural state is free to do as he pleases. He is not subordinate to anyone or anything. He has a natural right to his life, his freedom, and his property. All men are equal in this way. We all have an equal opportunity to pursue our happiness. We are not naturally equal in talents, intellect, health, family, size; the list goes on.
We come together as a society and form a minimalist state to protect our natural rights from those who wish to steal our natural right to property, who wish to enslave us stripping us of our natural right to liberty, and those who wish to murder us thus taking away our natural right to life. The state formed by society to protect our natural rights does not do anything positive like guaranteeing us a job, health care, property, friends, and so on. Some detractors say health care is a protection of our natural right to life. To that I ask, "Well, if the founders meant health care is a protection of your natural right to life, then what about good food? Wouldn't you say good food prolongs your life? Isn't it a requirement for life? If the government must protect our natural right to life with health care I would think good food would be protection, right? What about a good house? Not just a good house, but a mansion like Bill Maher has. Wouldn't that make my life better and protect it more?" It's ridiculous to think so. Government is to punish murderers, thieves, and tyrants, not supply us with things we can get through reliance on our self, friends, and family for in our task of seeking good health.
In short, collectivists seek power in a monstrous state. They like power. They like being thought of as "good" and "for the people" even when their policies do nothing but create poverty, dependency, and minimize the individual. For all their claims of loving diversity, people not getting a fair shot, and so on, they do nothing short of leveling the field of diversity, killing the individual's talents and abilities, making a desert out of a lush, beautiful, diverse, and powerful field of individuals who create a good society. I think it's sad that our president believes in and pursues policies that are shaped and inspired by collectivist philosophy. To have a guy like Chavez say what he did about our President makes me sad. I encourage all politicians to study individualism. If those on the left would only take a look into it, they will see that individualistic policies
can not only produce a good society, but also reach liberal goals of
peace and social justice.
The Collectivist Monster