Connecting the dots ...

The thrust of my question seems, to me, unanswered.

I do think it is a sharp observation to note the false impression that "society" is successful, rather then the individual person. Undeniably true. But I think there is something "grander" at play here with our current trend towards "collective" solutions, then your proposition's properly identify. And when I say "our" I mean to include continentals - Europeans. It is my observation that we are simply a generation or two behind their lead in terms of the rampant nationalization of what were traditionally individual responsibilities, the most explicit example being health care. It has been noted that the Democrat Party has put the US on a European model fast boat to socialism, whereas Republicans are simply loading us onto a slower boat. I find that unfortunately astute.

Now, I am not discounting your points about the impact the US union movement had on, and I'm paraphrasing you, somewhat legitimizing a collectivist mentality in the US (with the understanding it was an earnest attempt to balance unchecked corporate SOP at the time). Neither am I discounting the fact that the idea of a socialist Utopia has historically been a part of modern man's struggle to identify how societies should be organized (each and every time ending in failure for precisely the reasons you listed). However, it occurs to me that there is something bigger at play with wealthy, successful, Western democracies. There has to be a reason that as a nation (I'll use the US as an example) we have ended up in 2008 with socialism going mainstream. In our genesis we are put on a course that demands personal liberty and accountability, then continue on with that as the founding principle of our society with it correcting egregious sins such as slavery and racial discrimination along the way. And all that time although "socialist Utopia" movements and orators have come and gone, they were largely relegated to the margins of US society. But at some point (and to pick a specific year may be a fool's errand) we seem to have hit an economic success rate, so high as a country, so unprecedented in human history, that socialism began to creep into the mainstream in order to ensure that "everybody" is partaking.

Perhaps we can identify its start in the US with the Great Society. Fellow conservatives would be tempted to start with the New Deal. However I do not - FDR, while certainly enlarging the governments role in economic crisis solving, was doing so in reaction to a real crisis, The Great Depression. LBJ, in what marks in my opinion the US slide into legitimizing socialism in the mainstream, was an attempt to react to a perceived wrong. He, and his supporters "felt" something must be done by the government to ensure not just equal opportunity to wealth, but equal OUTCOME, seemingly even regardless of effort. And once we were on the path to government "guarantees" of outcome, we stayed. Now I'm going to exempt Reagan in large part, but virtually each and every PoTUS starting with LBJ, regardless of Party, decided to use the federal government to correct what they (or the popular movement of the time which they as president either bought into or caved into) perceived as socioeconomic injustices. And that leads me to the larger point ...

Within Western democratic wealthy nations there seems to be a marker laid down at some point in their history (as a democracy) in which either from a collective guilt over race relations or some other form of economic "shame" over their father's success "on the backs of others", they reach a point that guaranteeing "equal" rights is no longer good enough. Simply ensuring that regardless of race, minority status, gender, or economic lot your born into, YOU have a fair and protected shot to use your God given talents to succeed. That idea becomes no longer good enough. Evening the playing field and eliminating discrimination is seen as insufficient to wipe history's slate clean. And as a society these Western nations seem to buy into the idea that because of past sins (be they slavery or unchecked corporate/industrial policies towards the poor) that something "special", above and beyond ensuring equal rights and equal access to success, must be granted in order to "make up" for the sins perpetrated against minorities and the working poor. Enter the Great Society; welfare; affirmative action; medicare; medicaid; free public housing; free preschool; etc, etc, etc. Each and every one aimed at helping groups that were once either exploited or flat out discriminated against. But no longer were they aimed at ensuring equal opportunity, but rather at ensuring equal results.

Now, does every elected official today advocate government sponsored socioeconomic solutions to problems because they still feel a collective "shame." No. But once Western socialism got a foothold under the guise of correcting past sins, it became the norm. And worse, it became the norm for how politicians got reelected. You start out wanting to do something "special" for segments of society that were especially discriminated against (based on race or economic status) and you end up with the idea 2 generations later that anytime there is a problem, more government is the solution. And not just for the formerly oppressed or exploited, but for everyone for no other reason then they successfully navigated the birthing canal and evacuated the womb. Every necessity of life is perceived as a government guaranteed right, rather then a personal responsibility.

The question is, how do we reverse that trend? Hell, the GOP seems to have bought into it, at least somewhat. Twice, in my opinion, a stop gap was put on this trend since the time of LBJ. Once in the executive branch with Ronnie. And once in the legislative branch with the 1994 congress (welfare reform etc). But the trend was merely paused, not stopped. And here today we stand with the supposed heir to Reagansim (Mac even calls himself a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution") offering $300 billion for bad mortgages. And our socialistic trend looks radically right-winged compared to Europe's. And as I said, the scary prospect is that we are merely a generation or two behind their lead.

So I have given my opinion as to why the West is trending towards socialism. The question now is how do we arrest it and go in reverse so that "equal opportunity" is prized and protected, rather then the doomed to fail attempts at guaranteeing "equal results."