Why is the West trending socialist?

Seriously. Put aside American politics, it appears to me that each of the democratic (small "d") Western nations are trending towards big government solutions, lavish welfare states, and the emphasis on personal reliance for the simple necessities of life shifted to faceless bureaucrats all under the guise of "compassion." Is it simply the fate of all successful democracies? Is it our own wealth that has caused us to believe that LITERALLY no child (nor man nor woman) will be left behind, regardless of effort? Have we bought into the idea over time, as a collective conscience, that any nation free or otherwise can indeed "eliminate" poverty? Have we become that naive? Acquired that much hubris?

I offered the thought some days ago that the infatuation with what Barak Obama represents was a cyclical phenomenon within the US, and used Carter as an example. I think I was wrong. Why? What has Bush offered as a solution to societies ails? No Child Left Behind; prescription drug benefits; the 860 billion dollar incursion into the private sector by the federal government. This nation is trending towards nationalization policies regardless of which Party assumes control of the White House or Congress. And as if an on the ropes poker player John McCain has come over the top of Bush's last bet to not only call, but raise an additional $300 billion in tax payer dollars in order to nationalize bad mortgages. We all know of Europe's ails - welfare sates (in its technical definition, not just the common US political usage) that require an ever broadening tax base, even if that base must be imported. What has happened to the mighty, dominant, wealthy West that it looks more and more to its' collective governments ideas on collectivism?

Is it our hemispheric hang over on how we arrived at that great wealth? Slavery, segregation, brutal assertion into the US Western lands and Europe's imperial sins? Is this causing a sort of PC reckoning as we, with each generation, attempt to prove "see, we ARE good people, look how generous we are?" If so, that guilt ridden approach to our very existence is a prescription for societal suicide.

As I asked myself these questions on the way to work the other day, I found comfort in the oddest of places - NPR. When I was in freshman college US History I once wrote a report on the career of William Jennings Bryant. I just found his populist messages, and his ever present ability to articulate them, fascinating. Fascinating, I should say, in how much I disagreed with him. However, I found in reading his writings and speeches he to be a powerfully committed man that simply loved America, but thought it was better then it was behaving toward rural farmers. An earnest loyal opposition whom would cause his foes to be up late the nights before a debate encounter. Scared Bryant would play them the fool, for once he began his speeches had a dominating profile. Ultimately "the people", in their wisdom, chose to not elect him president, even though he gave them that opportunity to choose no less then three times, he,he. It always stuck with me, the passion of a man I vehemently would have disagreed with were I using some pigeon's feather, an ink well, and parchment to communicate my dislike to my fellow Bund members at the turn of the last century (perhaps it is why I tend to befriend those with whom I politically disagree, he). At any rate, as I was driving I finally was able (outside of the military) to witness first hand a useful employment of my tax dollars.

In a segment that runs just seconds over 15 minutes NPR celebrated the 100 year anniversary of the presidential political soundbite. In 1908 Democrat William Jennings Bryant faced Republican William Howard Taft. Now up to this time it was considered "unseemly" for the actual candidates to campaign for themselves. Political subordinates preformed this duty. But Bryant decided to break with this tradition, and hopped on a locomotive utilizing his greatest asset - his voice. Reportedly he spoke to "millions" of people. Then a funny thing happened. Some people approached him and explained the success of a new invention sweeping into households across the nation - the phonograph. The problem was, however, that the device would hold only 2 minutes worth of recorded sound. Political speeches in this age could go on for hours, and Bryant was particularly able to go on much longer then that. "No problem" he uttered. He promised to get the message down to a succinct 2 minutes. And thus the political soundbite was born.

Of course Bryant caught all hell for engaging in this "low brow, unseemly" behavior, even from his own Party. But guess what? The political message was a hit. People loved having a potential president's voice in their very own home, almost as if it was a privilege. Taft, despite his many ridicules for that very action of Bryant's, was forced to respond. He too would cut his own 2 minute political message. Now, live from 1908, listen to the first political soundbite. For any one historically oriented it is a particular treat to hear the actual voice of men you've only read about. Imagine having Leonidas on tape, rallying his Spartan troops ... William of Wallace ... Caesar ... Alexander. True, neither of these men would come to affect history in a way such as these names, but one would become president of a nation that indeed has shaped history in the most dramatic of ways.

Now ... you may ask why all this gave me comfort. Taft's position, the one he felt important enough to give in his one and only 2 minute message? It was about how ill fated it would be for capitalist banks of democratic nations to be invaded by the federal government. Apparently this was all the talk. Now setting aside what happened between then and 1929, it gave me at least SOME solace that our grandfather's father's faced, and overcame, some of the same problems we face now.