Unfettered Capitalism is not Conservative!
Reed R. Heustis, Jr.

I once thought that in order to be a "good conservative," I must embrace unfettered capitalism.

But I soon realized that unfettered capitalism is really unfettered libertarianism, which promotes licentiousness and immorality at all costs.

If the government were to intervene in the marketplace, I once thought, then somehow it would be "unconservative."

Something smelled rotten in Denmark.

To my pleasant surprise, I came to learn that the United States' early economy was neither communistic nor capitalistic.

It was simply an economy that was American.

Let me explain...

Unfortunately, today's young "conservatives" are bamboozled into thinking that there are only two kinds of economies: communism and capitalism, the difference being who owns the "means of production."

Communism calls for the "public" ownership of capital, while capitalism calls for the "private" ownership of capital.

However, both ideologies are materialistic twins: they both are obsessed with the concept of "capital." Thus, communism really is just a form of capitalism, the only
difference being Who owns the capital.

Both ideologies see the greatest good in its own ends: communism sees the greatest good as the public ownership of all capital, while capitalism sees the greatest good as the private ownership of all capital.

Notice how any other positive "good" is completely ignored: patriotism, family, nationalism, communitarianism, Christian good will.... They all take a back seat to
the "real" aim of Who owns the capital?

In a pure capitalist society, the greatest "good" is the mere fact that capital is in private hands without government interference. To the capitalist, even his own national sovereignty is for sale to the highest bidder. It is through pure capitalist policies that allow foreigners to buy American real estate without even being citizens or residents here.

Similarly, it does not matter to the communist that his own national sovereignty can be sold out to the highest bidder. To the communist, as long as the "working class" or the "Proletariat" owns the means of production, then his own national sovereignty is expendable.

It is no surprise that Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto, urged the "workers of the world" to "unite!"  In Marx's mind, nationhood and boundaries were impediments to the "greatest good" of public ownership of capital.

It is also no surprise that today's fierce dog-eat-dog multinational corporate capitalists are also seeking a one-world government whereby individual national laws are abolished so that private capital can be more "freely exchanged" on a "global basis." As you can see, to the capitalist, concepts such as nation states and boundaries are "outmoded" impediments to their "greatest good" of private ownership of capital without compromise.

Communism and Capitalism both want one world government. Marx called for global free trade, as do our contemporary capitalist "leaders."

Today, Big Labor supports unfettered communism, while Big Business supports unfettered capitalism.

We must reject both Big Labor and Big Business.

Neither concepts are concerned about the Christian principles upon which America was founded, nor do they care about the preservation of American sovereignty, independence and the U.S. Constitution.

We must realize that we can be both Pro-Worker and Pro-Business at the same time without supporting Big Labor and Big Business.

Our Founding Fathers were not communists, and neither were they capitalists, and yet they indeed were pro-worker while simultaneously being pro-business.

I encourage you to read Alexander Hamilton's 1791 Report to the Congress on the Subject of Manufactures.

Hamilton's ideas were adopted by our early national government in an attempt to strengthen and nationalize the union. It is Hamilton's ideas embraced by other famous American leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson. In fact, even Patrick J. Buchanan embraced Hamilton's economics.

Hamilton's idea was called, "The American System of Economics." It was not communistic and it was not capitalistic. It was a market based economy which specifically seeks a strong moral nation.

Essentially, it is this American System that Pat Buchanan calls, "economic nationalism."

The Hamiltonian model used protectionism and tariffs pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. This obviously protected American industry from foreign predators,
allowed American workers to keep what they earned (without using an unconstitutional income tax), and encouraged a cooperation between both labor and capital.

The main tenet of this form of economics was the Christian idea that harmony between capital and labor would be encouraged. Hamilton understood that when
capital and labor are in harmony, nationalism flourishes and loyalty to community and country abounds.

This system definitely was a recipe for strong love for country and a prosperous people, and Buchanan points out in his book, The Great Betrayal, that it was through the American System of Economics that America went from an agrarian society to the mightiest industrial nation on earth.

One of the reasons why I left the Republican Party was because it walked away from these economic principles also championed by Lincoln and Roosevelt. The Republican Party had once been the party of tariffs and protectionism, just like our early American Presidents. But soon the GOP was hijacked by globalists who want exactly what the communists and capitalists want: a one world government without borders where the greatest "good" centers on capital.

Thankfully the Constitution Party stands for the U.S. Constitution which would allow our national government to pursue policies that strengthen the nation while strengthening the people.

Hope this helps,

Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
http://www.ReedHeustis.com
2002-2004 Vice-chairman, American Independent Party
(California's Constitution Party)
Constitution Party

Return to Important Articles

Return to Articles