Stuck in traffic recently, I mused on the Obama-campaign-issued “Hope” decal affixed to the back windshield of the car in front of me.

I wondered what about life in America feels so hopeless to Obama fans, and considered the irony of the fact that socialism is the bearer of hopelessness. That is, precisely what Obama promises to bring. In the socialist society I came from, there was no incentive to work well or to create, and there was nothing to build toward or upon. Quite simply, there was no future. Here, on the other hand, the sky has always been the limit, even in hard times and no matter how “hard” times seem — something that is always cyclical in a capitalist society. In Russia, there was a glass ceiling for all, and it was lower and made of concrete instead of glass.

In conclusion, then, perhaps “hope” is what Americans are tired of. They’re tired of their lives being in their own hands, of the uncertainty that this brings. They are tired of doing and thinking for themselves, of striving without a clear direction. They’re ready for equally-distributed despair.

This World Net Daily piece from earlier in the year profiles the late American socialist, pacifist, and presidential candidate Norman Mattoon Thomas, who said the following:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

As was pointed out in an email being circulated about Thomas, this is precisely the boiling frog scenario: put a frog in boiling water and it’ll jump out. But put it in a pot of cool water, turn up the heat gradually, and the frog will boil to death.

Thomas also said: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.”

No wonder it was so important for Tim Russert that “Red” not denote states voting Democratic, as had been done until he switched “Red” and “Blue” starting with the 2000 election.

What’s so wrong with socialism, in a sentence? From Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

On a related note:

Son of Soviet spies calls on ‘progressive’ Democrats to plunge America into socialism

The activist son of a notorious pair of convicted Soviet spies is urging a mass “progressive” movement to pressure Barack Obama toward enacting policies that make America more socialist.

“All the stories about Obama’s economic team and his economic instincts mean is that we on the left have to shout loud and clear to make the policies move in our direction,” writes Michael Meeropol on the far-left leaning Rag Tag blog.

Meeropol was born Michael Rosenberg, son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the first civilians executed for espionage in American history. Though many have long claimed the couple was innocent, the Rosenbergs were found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage for passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union.

After the execution of his parents, Meeropol was adopted by Abel Meeropol, a liberal activist and writer.
Meeropol, who is involved in an organization that includes among its ranks former Obama mentors, has now called for a mass activist movement modeled after the Communist-led labor “people’s organizations” of the New Deal-era that were instrumental in bringing about drastic concessions from President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

He adds, “Joe Hill said, ‘Don’t mourn for me, organize.’ We should say, ‘Don’t mourn Obama’s leanings – organize to push him the other way.’”

The New Zeal blog documents that Michael Meeropol has connections to Obama mentors through the Movement for a Democratic Society, a far-left leaning activist organization. Meeropol is a leading member of the MDS alongside former Weathermen terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, whose deep connections to Obama sparked controversy during the presidential campaign.

And so the perpetual questions resurface: Was it wrong to kill the Rosenbergs? Was it right to kill the Rosenbergs? Did we kill enough Rosenbergs?