Speaking truth to fascism: John Mackey's courage
Our heartiest congratulations to John Mackey, CEO of the wildly popular Whole Foods supermarket chain. For last week, he had the courage (and on NPR, no less) to call out ObamaCare for what it is — economic “fascism.”
The “civil discourse” crowd, of course, is up in arms. After all, for knee-jerk “progressives,” labeling something (or someone) as “fascist” is one of the nastiest political epithets one can “name-call.” But even elementary students of history and economics know better.
As Sheldon Richman reminds in the Library of Economics and Liberty, “As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. For those with the hubris to think they, not free markets, could better serve society, ‘fascism' (or as we prefer, “fascistic economics”) was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone (classic) liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism.”
The general parallels to Obamanomics are glaring. Throw in the specifics of ObamaCare — then consider forays into national industrial policy and state protection of organized labor cartels — and the parallels are blinding.
Simply put, fascistic economics “denatures” the marketplace, eventually destroying it, and all in warped servitude to “the state.”
Whole Foods' John Mackey will take his lumps from the “progressive” ignorami. (Later he even expressed regret for using a word considered to be taboo.) But he is to be lauded for speaking truth to economic fascism.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.