The “Accomplishments” of Central Planners

As America continues to stumble headlong toward more government-directed “solutions”, it struck me how awfully people have fared under such actions with  the guise of help. While having fewer destructive and deathly effects, the current United States leader’s uncritical neglect of many people’s concerns, and unwavering sense of superiority, certainly mirrors the mindsets and machinations of those leaders who created much larger disasters. Throughout the 20th century, there were leaders who were so convinced of their own brilliance, that they did not need any critical thought or feel any need to change their perfect plans.

Convinced that he knew how to increase the grain output from some of the most fertile farmland in the world, a Georgian leader began issuing edicts and laws to increase food production. His agricultural policies led to the deaths of between five and eight million Soviet peasants. This leader used divisive tactics to play one class against another, telling the poorer that the richer were earning more than they ought to on the backs of the poorer.

The false narrative of kulaks taking advantage of peasants, saw reprisals and animus grow against the kulaks. The class warfare eventually grew so bitter, that the farming peasants were content to let the kulaks die where they lay. The Soviets leaders set up numerous laws, which delivered excessive penalties when they were broken. Something so innocent as harvesting spilled grain from the fields could land a person in a gulag for a year.  So terrible were the results of this planning, many of the records concerning it were kept sealed in archives for 60 years.

This “cult of perfect leadership” spread to another Marxist Utopia in the late 1950s. Mao Zedong’s visions for a capable and self-sustaining China met with harsh reality too. Mao followed the same flawed plan that led to the Soviet’s famine in the early 1930s. The “Great Leap Forward” included a period from 1958 to 1961, which saw deaths of between 15 and 43 million Chinese people.

The Chinese leadership simply told the people it would be better for them to eat less – and then attempted to force them to do so. The famine grew so bad in some areas, reports filtered out that people were turning to cannibalism to satiate their hunger (children were reportedly swapped between families, so they would not have to eat their own offspring). Despite the starvation, the Chinese planners kept true to that five-year plan.

Cuba and North Korea are two more centrally planned, dictatorial governments, who fail miserably to deliver on any promises that they make. Stuck in rampant poverty since the 1959 Castro coup, Cuba seems stuck in a time bubble of 1950s technology as well. The Cubans may have seen minor improvements in their economies since the early 1990s, but that could be blamed on forced change, due to the death of their biggest benefactor, the Soviet Union.

Perhaps the biggest event in Cuba was not any economic or humanitarian event, but, due to the closeness of Cuba to the Soviet Union, the near-nuclear war between super powers in 1961. Castro supported missiles in Cuba, and tried to prod Khrushchev into acting against the United States, too.

Xenophobic North Korean leaders rely on boogeymen to instill constant fear into their populace, and keep the people united against anyone but their oppressors (North Korean leaders). North Korea’s military is far more important than their civilians (but leaders have trouble feeding the military too). The government’s response to the disaster was to re-brand it – calling it the “Arduous March”, and attempting to equate lack of food to a willing sacrifice for the betterment of the country. As it stands now, North Korea still is very close to sliding into another famine, their children now suffer retarded growth, and the country relies heavily on grain imports from the U.N. and South Korea to feed its people.

So – these instances of flawed, failed, and fruitless leadership – what should we take away from them? That leadership is not perfect, should go without saying. The takeaway is this: that unquestioned leadership is a very dangerous thing. Whether the leadership uses force or charisma to further its aims matters little. Leaders in echo-chambers, without frequent and legitimate challenges to their authority, who hold a sense of superiority, can lead countries into very bad situations.

While the American media continues to fawn over Obama, and hang on his every word, the people who must live with the results of his executive orders and fellow democrats’  misleading words know better. America still has the checks and balances that the Founders gave us, but it remains more than ever, up to us to use them, despite what the media cheerleaders tell us, and despite what our politicians promise us.

Just do as you're told - it will all be better that way.
“Just do as you are told – it will all be better that way.” The mantra of the left

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.


I'm a young guy from Ohio, and I'm driven by a concern and worry about the fallout of the arbitrary nature of our "leadership" in the government. I'm a concerned conservative, who is worried about the miserable and contrary rules that are issued from Washington. I wish more people would be far more weary of the destructive nature of government. I hope I ask questions that make you think, and get as nervous as we should be about the powers that be, in D.C.

Related Articles


  1. So Obama is a mass murderer of tens of millions? Get real, atleast Obama didn’t start a whol war under falsified information…ooops did I bring that up? All of this tired hypocrisy over Obama’s flaws, talks of impeachment, yet not conservative news website is pushing for prosecution of Bush, Cheney, and Rice. I don’t have any idea how on Earth I remain sane reading vile like this everyday.

    1. Jean – he didn’t say any of that. Can you read? Can you comprehend what you read? This was a history lesson that we are doomed to repeat if we don’t learn from it.

      1. Exactly Lorraine.
        The point, that I expected readers to understand was; pomposity and a sense of infallibility in leaders, especially when lacking any critical press or party, have never built anything to brag about. Leaders who exhibit those traits, in an environment such as that, necessarily need a people to keep a very weary eye on them, and to foil those leaders’ plans whenever possible.

  2. Oh come on George jr. brought this country to war through lies. Reagan sold drugs to fund terrorists. Obama has done unspeakable things, but is it fair to compare him to some of the worst criminals of all time without adding the names of some of the most warmongering, spineless Republican presidents?

    1. I was actually comparing his personality and the way in which he uses his party and the press in a manner that would make any despot nod approvingly.
      If you’d like to investigate more red herrings, especially “warmongers”, I’d simply remind you that the only person in the world to use an atomic bomb (on civilians, no less, and he did it twice) was a democrat.

  3. Obama does have fanatical followers in pockets of the population, but comparing him to Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and Castro is ridiculous. If anyone has a truly cult like following it is Reagan, the supposed man of reason and fiscal conservatism that sold drugs to terrorists, raised the debt tremendously, closed mental hospitals, and sold out the American people to big business. The man is treated by the right as the second coming of Christ. Oh, and using Truman as an example of a warmongering Democrat doesn’t contradict my arguement of your hypocrisy, it only reasserts it; you refuse to even acknowledge what I said about Reagan and Bush’s despicable crimes against humanity. I am not saying Democrats haven’t done disturbing things, Obama included, but where is the article calling for a prosecution of the former Bush administration? Exactly.

    1. Another red herring, Jean. Maybe you haven’t heard, but Reagan’s been out of the Oval Office for some time now, and doesn’t wield any power anymore. As far as raising debt, I’d refer you to the Congress for that. As far as selling drugs for terror-money – when was Reagan charged with that again?
      Bush, went to war with Iraq after Saddam violated numerous U.N. resolutions (Res. 1441 being the last, and most serious of them). Bush also sought, and received, bi-partisan support to go to war in Iraq, from the U.S. Congress. So, why again should Bush be the only person held responsible for actions the Congress, and much of the world, supported? Simply because you don’t like him, is that it?
      “Despicable crimes against humanity”? Please. Such hyperbole does nothing to bolster your case.
      I’m a bit confused as to why I am a hypocrite, as I used Truman as an absurd example of your own tactics, ma’am. It wasn’t intended as any rebuttal.

  4. Well, JB, the clarity & accuracy is apparent to me & I couldn’t agree more. Each of these ‘leaders’ are saturated with the Mcaviiilan influnce & not capable of seeing past the end of their nose, nor do they care too. I understand the reason some kiss the Bishop’s ring, but Obama’s backside escapes me.

    1. Haha, thank you, Jan – I appreciate your words.
      Between your comment and Lorraine’s, I don’t see how anyone could glean anything but what you have both described. It boils down to self-deluded and overly self-assured leaders being dangerous. Simple.

  5. I know Reagan isn’t office, I mean the man is dead. What I was trying to convey in bringing him up is that Rrpublicans, I am sure you included, love to invoke his name as some type of charm. Furthermore, of course he wasn’t prosecuted, as president he has a powerful legal team. On top of that, scholars, legal experts, and historians will tell you that there was enough evidence, that his Sec. of State destroyed, to convic him. Don’t try to tell me Reagan wouldn’t have known such a large scale, international, crime could have escaped his nose.

    I am also shocked that you have the audacity to justify what the Bush administration did. We both know Bush’s biggest arguement to invade Iraq was the WMD lie, look at the speeches Rice and Powell gave. If you were to walk into a room of FP experts and try to convince them that Bush had a concrete–I know that Saddam was a treacherous Dictator–reason to invade Iraq they would laugh you out of the room. You can continue to cite UN charters all you want, it proves little to nothing.

    I also would like to add that I am not an older White Lady as you may mistake by my name. I am a 19 year old Haitian male, my Jean is French.

    1. Well, first and foremost, I apologize for assuming you were a lady, sir.

      Now then, I believe it was you that invoked the myth of Ronald Reagan, not I. As far as destroyed evidence that would have surely convicted him – to me, that borders on a conspiracy theory. People were held responsible, and people lost their jobs and did time.

      I really didn’t justify what Bush did – I pointed out that he was hardly the only person who would have blood on his hands were the claims that he used false pretenses to invade Iraq true. That’s quite different from saying “he was innocent” or that he “was completely justified”.
      At best, it appears he is now a convenient scapegoat for others who supported the invasion, and are Monday-morning quarterbacking. If the U.S. Congress and United Nations had not cared so much as to continually reprimand and decry Saddam, would Bush have been able to easily, unilaterally, invade? Surely not.

  6. First I would like to say my phone gets bugged when I reply to a comment, so that is why I continuously add a new comment. Second, it is no problen my name is what it is.

    Now, to counter your Reagan tid bit. I invoked both Reagan and Bush’s name to point out that Rrpublicans talk so much about Obama’s flaws, which are numerous I agree, yet remain blindly devoted to the likes of Reagan and silent towards the Bush administration’s faults. I also want to apologize for overstepping my bounds in saying Reagan’s Secretary of State destroyed evidence, Oliver North did. Now you can call me a conspiracy theorist, but unlike the Truthers, I actually have history books and countless websites on my side detailing Reagan’s support of the Sandinistas, but of course there isn’t decisive information that he knew what was going on–hmmm kind of reminds me of a current president and a city in Libya, oh the hypocrisy.

    I for one do not completely blame Bush for the invasion of Iraq. However, at the time of the voting to invade Iraq, the US was attacked. I wouldn’t say these people had a choice in the matter. You’re also making it seem like I don’t blame anyone else for what happened, I do. But Bush is definitely the main culprit of what occurred, if we worry more about who else to blame as some type of escape mechanism are we admitting something awful occurred and we are ignoring it, or are we saying nothing happened at all?

Back to top button