Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently appeared on a Discovery Channel program that attempted to explain economics and capitalism. Reich, a seemingly well-educated man, kept referring to capitalism as simply dressed-up greed. In his fevered mind, there appeared to be no place for capitalism in the world, because it was based on greed. He referred to the writings of Adam Smith as proof that greed was the underlying motivation for capitalism - not personal achievement or bettering one’s life, not even providing the best for one’s family. It was just simple greed. Reich is not an idiot, but he is a demagogue. He’s entitled to his opinions, but when they are amplified and broadcast across the country, his extremist views influence others. The program provided no opposing views or commentary. This insult to our open, free-market economic system went unanswered, as do many other such insults.

Contrast Reich’s opinions with the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville, a French writer and political scientist who toured America in the early 1800s. He was struck by the incredible energy and vitality of everyday Americans - simple men and women who worked doggedly at improving their lot in life. He observed that this was possible only in America, because only in America did hard work pay off for the common man. Therefore, it wasn’t ‘greed’ that motivated Americans over the last 200 years, it was the possibility, the certainty, that if they worked really hard, no one could take their newly found prosperity away from them. It energized them, it gave them hope for a better tomorrow. And yes, a very few people became very rich doing so. But, the more important point is that hundreds upon thousands became very prosperous - much more so than if they’d remained in Europe. It was the growth and political stability of a solid middle class that distinguished America from any other nation at any other time.

This has always been the central argument against capitalism — the poor are exploited by the greedy rich. In Europe, the poor had been exploited by the rich and powerful for centuries, well before capitalism existed. And, there were proportionately more poor people in Europe during the 1800s than in America. They were held back by social barriers, denied education and opportunity, prohibited from relocating to areas with better economic conditions. This was the reality of life in England and Europe. Slavery was abolished in the United States by presidential decree in 1861. But only after pressure was applied by other European governments did Russia finally abolish serfdom for Ukrainian peasants in 1862, freeing hundreds of thousands from centuries of bondage. The lack of opportunity and incentive was a fact of life for millions of Europeans.

In America, those who escaped the rigid social and economic structure of Europe were becoming landowners, opened small businesses and sent their children to universities. This was impossible anywhere else in the world and in many places is still impossible today. What America’s largely classless society was able to accomplish was the marvel of the modern world - a relatively well functioning capitalist system with minimal interference by aristocrats, autocrats and bureaucrats. Was it perfect? No. Did excesses and failures occur? Yes. But, it’s still the best system ever devised by man. The irony is that the liberal elite who preach against a free-market economy and capitalism have benefited most from its bounty.

Take Robert Reich as an example -  he attended Dartmouth College and won a Rhodes scholarship to study in England. The Rhodes scholarship was endowed by Cecil Rhodes, a capitalist and diamond merchant. Reich then taught at Harvard University, the wealthiest educational institution in the world. Harvard endowments exceed $45 billion, most of them gifts from capitalist alumni. At Brandeis University he was the Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economy Policy at the Heller School of Social Policy and Management. He’s currently a professor at UC Berkley’s Goldman School of Public Policy. Maurice Hexter, Florence Heller, Richard and Rhoda Goldman are philanthropists who endowed the institutions that paid Reich’s salary. Where did their money come from? Capitalism. This ingrate, along with his former girlfriend Hillary Clinton and thousands of other liberals, have no problem taking money from capitalists only to turn around and bite the hand that feeds them.

But then, this is what liberals do. They resent the fact that someone else has worked harder, worked smarter or had the good fortune to accumulate wealth. Envy is a powerful emotion. It’s corrosive, destructive and insidious. Envy, dressed up as public policy, is what threatens free market capitalism. Demagogues like Reich and Obama have used envy to whip up class warfare, turning it to their own advantage. Socialism is their choice of socio-political structure, not because it’s inherently better than capitalism, but because it can be easily controlled by a small elite. That’s right: Socialist activists like Reich and Obama firmly believe in their own superior intellect and abilities, and they’re more than happy to impose their ideology on the rest of America. The average American can’t seem to grasp this. Why would someone dedicate their lives to telling other people what to do? There doesn’t seem to be any profit in it. And that’s the key - Americans are so conditioned to a direct linkage between effort and material reward that the desire to accumulate personal power is totally foreign.

They don’t understand it because they’ve never lived under despotic rulers or communist totalitarianism. Josef Stalin murdered millions and destroyed entire civilizations. He controlled the Soviet Unions economy with an iron fist. As the supreme ruler, he could have any material thing he wanted. And yet, he lived like a pauper. This is unfathomable to the average American. Unfortunately, Americans will need to get used to it. Obama’s monstrous plan to grow government means that all Americans will be working for the government, whether they understand it or not and whether they like it or not.

Reich, Obama and other well-educated liberal elites have no problem taking money from capitalists to feather their own nests. They have no problem taking money from taxpayers, either. Using our tax dollars, they will build a utopia in their own image and likeness. And, they’ll do it in the name of ‘fairness’. At some point, Americans will wake up and find themselves yoked to a huge and unyielding machine that sucks the life out of them. But it will be too late. Betrayed by liberal ideals, Americans will have allowed the most despotic form of government to take hold. They will have thrown away their freedoms and their future.

Labor unions are starting to collect on their investment in a Democratic victory at the polls, and now it’s time for the mainstream media cabal to do the same. After all, it costs big money to harass Sarah Palin and her family, send teams of investigators up to Alaska and distribute slanderous allegations nationwide. Hollywood has already received its $300 million in tax credits, discreetly buried deep inside the pork-ridden bank bailout bill. Now, it’s the media barons’ turn to belly up to the trough. The New York Times and the LA Times are both losing readership and classified ad revenues. They haven’t been able to make much money online. Conservative pundits attribute this to extreme bias and pandering to the left, resulting in an exodus of subscribers. That’s only partially true. The big problem isn’t readership, it’s reading.

In a twist of supreme irony, the same newspapers that championed diversity and multiculturalism, that tirelessly promoted social engineering and socialist causes, are now reaping their just reward. Americans who no longer feel compelled to learn English are not going to read a newspaper printed in English, or its online analog. Americans who no longer feel compelled to be engaged in the national discourse are not going to read a newspaper, English or otherwise. Americans who have come to live in this country in order to enrich themselves and not participate in public life or public institutions are not going to read a newspaper. And finally, those who might consider reading a newspaper or its online equivalent can’t, because they have been so poorly educated by the very same unions and public schools these newspapers have always supported.

Now that bailout spending has reached an epic $7-plus trillion and President Obama promises another trillion in handouts, the newspaper guys think it’s just as well to stick their hands out. One problem - a government subsidizing only a select few media outlets effectively makes those outlets nothing more than propaganda tools. Not that they haven’t already functioned as propaganda tools. This would just formalize the arrangement.  A government-supported New York Times is as dangerous as a government-funded ACLU. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that those who don’t benefit from the government’s largess will be at a competitive disadvantage. But then, fair play has never been a concern of mainstream journalists and TV news anchors. Just ask Bristol Palin.

The Obama administration, not yet fully installed, is already calling for radical changes to what it brazenly characterizes as the ‘failure’ of free-market capitalism. Given their way, Obama and his handlers would institute FDR-era programs liberally mixed with Johnson-era social engineering and the hopeless, self-limiting ideology of the Jimmy Carter era. This toxic cocktail would be forced down the throats of every American, even those who believe that bigger government is not the answer, and that we should rely on our own ingenuity and hard work to get out of the current economic disaster.

There is no doubt that Wall Street screwed up. Their greed and avarice blinded them to the enormous risks they were peddling to banks, investors, pensions and governments. It’s incredible that the CEOs and chairmen of Lehman Bros., Merrill, Bear Stearns and other big investment houses didn’t fully understand what was going on inside their own firms. Apparently, the need for transparency goes much deeper - into the very innards of these organizations. It’s strange that there are no arrests, no indictments and no large-scale investigations of the mortgage meltdown, the credit squeeze and the resulting economic catastrophe.

It doesn’t take a financial wizard to observe that mortgage-backed securities were created from pools of shaky borrowers, given an unrealistic rating and then sold around the world as investment-grade instruments. What’s even more difficult to imagine is that the same people who created these toxic securities bought them for their own accounts. Once again, it doesn’t take a wizard to observe that the executives didn’t know what people in their own organization were actually doing. Given these simple observations, one can only conclude that Wall Street executives taking home billions of dollars had no idea what they were doing, or just didn’t give a damn.

The alternative explanation is even more unsettling. One can also postulate that Wall Street execs understood fully what was going on. They understood fully the risks to the world’s markets and the potential damage to the American economy. But, they were making billions of dollars and their greed blinded them to the inevitable consequences.

Does this make free-market capitalism a failure? No. The basic concept is still the best possible system ever devised. But, it does bring into question the quality and scope of enforcing laws and regulations as they apply to Wall Street, banking and lending. There is also the matter of whether corruption, graft and influence peddling has compromised oversight and enforcement. This isn’t a Republican or a Democratic problem. It wasn’t created exclusively by either party or during any one administration. This is the result of a general erosion in ethics and personal responsibility. Wall Street is merely the canary in the coal mine.