Some men become rich and try to improve the lives of those who aren't; others become drunk on their wealth and think themselves petty gods. One of these vile creatures is George Soros, who wants to depose the president.
Now, if you don't think President Bush has been doing a good job, and if you disagree with his policies, then by all means try to remove him. Politicians should be removed often -- for incompetence, foolishness, their hair color, whatever. No man is indispensible in a democracy, and a higher turnover rate would encourage politicians to look to the common good instead of self-promotion. Let them strive for peace and prosperity, and let that be their legacy instead of wielding power.
That being said, doesn't it seem a little anti-democratic for a plutocrat to use his billions of dollars to remove a democratically elected president? And what makes people like Soros, Ross Perot, and the Rockefellers think they are modern-day Gracchi, defending us little people against the predations of other powerful, influential people? At least the patrons of the Roman senatorial class doled out money and favors directly to the poor; they had contact with the demos that extended beyond having its members serve their food and wash their clothes.
Soros became rich through currency speculation: by betting that one species of money would advance or decline relative to other species. Say what you want about the robber barons of the 19th century, they at least built their vast wealth by creating industries that brought material improvements in people's lives. Men like Soros provide no useful service commensurate with their vast wealth.
In the Third World, he supports what could be called "hard" family-planning (how I hate that euphemism!), including sterilization and abortion. He has (supposedly) spent billions on democracy overseas, particularly in Russia, and has done such a good job that there are no more independent major news media left in that country, and the economy is based on the admirable model of the mob families portrayed in "The Sopranos."
All of this success has left Soros with a keen sense of what's best for the world. He complains that Bush is "leading the U.S. and the world toward a vicious circle of escalating violence." Leave aside the sheer banality of his insights for a moment -- weren't we already in a "circle" (he means "cycle") of violence before January 2001? The terrorists kept hitting us, beginning in Beruit in 1983, and we kept ineffectually responding. The difference now is that we have a president who is dismantling the terrorists' infrastructures and killing the terrorists themselves. You can't have a "circle" if one side of the circle disappears, and Bush seems committed to making that happen.
Capitalism is the greatest system for ensuring material prosperity. If only we could get rid of most capitalists, it would be darn near perfect.
Capitalism could be replaced by something ELSE that is new. We just haven't figured out what that something new is at this time.
We also haven't figured out who our side would get to replace this guy who wants to replace Bush.
Hey, why couldn't a Catholic millionaire or billionaire step forward to the plate? Or why couldn't you highlight someone like him or her? Awareness of this evil is admirable, but why couldn't you come up with someone who is Catholic with money who does good?
Are we all too busy blogging here to step up to the plate and go for it? Or are we all too negative to even try. I am not advocating censoring the news, but can we not find someone who would counter this man?
Is there anyone out there who would give as this guy does? He is the negative, but where is the positive? Just wondering.
Soros is another one of those "collective security" idiots. Collective security is a wonderful concept for the Cold War and for a purely defensive, reactive posture.
I'm all for collective security cooperation with NATO and other multilateral military exercises for counterterrorism.
The real rub, however, is when different political realities among allies present problems to a united front for assertive preemptive action.
France, Germany, Russia, et al opposed action in Iraq precisely because the gathering threat was less prescient to them than to the security interests of the United States. Collective security as Soros sees it is more about a collective veto on the US acting in its best interests. Soros perhaps enjoyed Clinton's hijacking of NATO as a collective security instrument for the purpose of dethroning a legitimate (albeit brutal) leader of a country (Bosnia) which had not infringed on the sovereignty of another, but was opposed to Bush's push to overthrow a legitimate (albeit brutal) leader of a country which had invaded a foreign country (Kuwait) and never lived up to the terms of armistice.
Maddening.
And yeah, Soros probably has a lot of liberal guilt over making money off speculation as opposed to creating something of value. At its root, I think such liberal guilt speaks to spiritual poverty. When one knows the Truth and worships God in Spirit and Truth and has proper perspective on what God has blessed him with, he will pour his time and talent and treasure into the kingdom of God, investing in the Church promoting the Great Commission which propels said Church to evangelize the world.
We should pray for Soros to come to the Light of the Gospel and accept Christ and live for Him. Then he'll really be at peace and not seek to fill his empty life with stupid crusades.
Currency speculators do improve the world somewhat by providing liquidity and stabilizing world currencies, but not much.
True enough, Joe. I was only saying their wealth wasn't "commensurate" with their contributions to the world, not that they didn't have any function whatsoever. Given that central and private banks must control most of the international currency flows, I question how much they contribute to the overall stability of the world financial markets. But I am ignorant of the numbers involved, so I don't want to push my uninformed opinion too far.
Jeanne, there is Tom Monaghan, formerly of Domino's Pizza, who does more good works than I can list in a little comments box. He just doesn't get into politics that much, except for pro-life activism.
Ken, I think you're onto something with the guilt. It would take a very wise man to use great wealth in the political arena; but even a fool knows how to feed or clothe the poor. Maybe he will have a turnaround like Bill Gates, who realized a couple of years ago that Africans needed clean water and adequate food much more than they needed computers.
Eric, Just a comment on your last remark of the post. I think Marx's whole point in constructing the capitalist model was to illustrate that its very structure produces those capitalists you'd like to be rid of. As a model it illustrates the function of capitalism, which is to concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. If we were all saints, the perfect economy could well be capitalism, anarchy or monarchy, since if we were all saints (of the perfected variety, not the becoming variety) we would all be perfectly charitable so structure would not matter. The problem is that every structure of economy can (and will) be corrupted by our fallen nature. Having said this, in our fallen world, capitalism seems to work better in the short and midterm run, than any other system I can think of.
Denise
Thinking back over Soros, he could be an illustration of how capitalism produces would be petty tyrants. Obviously he thinks of himself as a world shaper, and to some limited extent, he is. Powered my money. Made available to him by capitalsim, which his vile nature exploits.
Denise
I love following the well-thought out, civil and interesting discussions and comments on this blog, and while I have to say I have been extremely disappointed by George Soros' recent comments as well, I would like to dispel the myth that the man has not done anything with his wealth.
He has given 5 billion dollars of his personal fortune to the development of civil society and democracy in former Soviet bloc countries through such projects as the Open Society Institute. These projects include everything from making sure small, independent, radio stations in Russia have copy machines and paper to the creation of Central European University in Budapest.
CEU was created to give the best students from all over the former Soviet bloc an opportunity to recieve a fully funded, western, education that they could otherwise not afford. Many of these students have taken their Master's degrees, gone back to their countries and made positive changes within the system. These students love the United States and love the opportunities they have been given, but feel very strongly that their place is in pushing for change in their own country.
Soros' programs are well-known for getting money and resources to the people that carry out good, honest and accountable work and not perpetuating the corruption that so often plagues grant agencies in the region. Essentially, they are the model for those who would help the countries help themselves, rather than simply throwing money at a problem.
Again, this is not to excuse the rather bizarre recent comments and behavior, but rather to bring these facts to everyone's attention. Keep up the great work and I will continue to be enlightened by this great blog that challenges me to examine, understand and exemplify my faith!