As liberal as he may be, there is no indication that Barack Obama plans to nationalize our major industries or centrally run our economy.
Let's all take a deep breath, myself included.
Barack Obama is not a socialist. I once said he was (mainly the result of a rushed column that was not carefully proofread.) But, I was wrong.
He is not a socialist for one simple reason — he says he isn't one.
I welcome the disavowal. I hope he can understand nevertheless why some Americans have this concern.
He was allegedly once a member of a socialist party, according to one writer on this site. I can't vouch for the research, so I don't embrace it without independent verification.
Many of his supporters are threatening to use the fairness doctine to shut down talk radio, which is an important communication channel for conservatives. That sounds like something a one-party state tries to do.
He supports big government programs in health care and education, plans to undertake significant wealth redistribution, and impose punitive taxes on the private sector.
But, if we look at the definition of socialism, the textbook definition, it involves consolidating the means of production into the hands of the government. However liberal he may be, there is no indication that Senator Obama plans to nationalize our major industries or centrally run our economy. And he gets a pass on the bailout, which was supported in a bipartisan way as an effort to contain an extreme economic crisis. That he might move our nation in that direction might be fair commentary, but it is an open question — even if one we can rightly be concerned about.
Senator Obama is also not a terrorist or anti-American. (No reputable conservative has said so, to my knowledge, but just in case.) I believe he loves this country. I just think his lack of experience in foreign policy and his policies domestically are a bad mix at this time, with the country at war and in economic turmoil.
All of this conceded, I would argue neverthless that the media has given the Senator a pass that few politicians have received. Obama's explanations of his strange and somewhat disturbing associations, for example, are accepted at face value while dozens of reporters are dispatched to Alaska to dig up trivial stories on Governor Palin. Fairness requires that the media spend as much time covering Senator Biden, and his gaffes, as they do covering Sarah Palin and her missteps. We haven't seen it and we probably won't.
Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats, as they typically do, seek to scare senior citizens about McCain cuts in Social Security and Medicaid, which independent groups that track campaign distortions have called false charges. To expend hours discussing a Palin answer on the Vice Presidency given to second graders is to engage in overkill that is malicious. We often simplify and distort answers when talking to children, and even if she had a misunderstanding of what the VP did day in and day out, who cares. No one claims Palin is an expert on the Constitution or the internal dynamics on Capitol Hill, but I'd bet a Ruth's Chris steak that she could shame Biden on energy policy, on executive management or the workings of state to federal government issues and on small business concerns. Palin is smart, and she will be more than capable if elected to the Vice Presidency.
Well, campaigns inevitably create a lot of heated rhetoric. Even so, there must be limits to extreme language and mean-spirited charges. This country is held together by civil society and discourse that enables us to disagree — even passionately — without demonizing fellow citizens and political opponents. As George Will, a master of language, once put it, democracy depends on what is in the heads of its citizens. That is why we count votes, not bullets, when we have political struggles.
Whichever man wins November 4th, it will be critical that we establish civil discourse through which to debate, disagree and confront. No conservative or liberal should be asked to abandon honestly held views (provided they are not beyond the pale) — that would be unAmerican. But those views should be tested against reality. The problem this election is that the media has failed to do its objective duty, which has helped fuel the frustration on the right side of the discussion. That's an explanation, but not an excuse.
As George Orwell wrote in his classic essay on political language:
It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration . . .
Now, Orwell was not addressing in this essay the temptations to embrace categorical language in politics, but he was criticizing sloppiness in thought and expression. Those of us who love language and consider it critical to a rich poetic life have a special obligation to pick our words with precision.
I herewith recant my comment about Senator Obama (and pray that the Senator will not push our nation in that direction). I also look forward to Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and the Democratic leadership with whom Obama has associated renouncing their extreme comments about this nation, President Bush and conservatives who love and serve these United States.
So what if he says he isn’t a socialist? Every policy that he is advocating reeks of statism.Why waste time working out exactly which term fits best? Fascist, socialist, communist – he is advocating more thievery and handouts. What more do you need to reach the conclusion of where he actually stands on the issues?
George,
I never had any real concern with Obama alone, because despite what the mainstream media would like everyone to think, the Presidency is limited. The President cannot do everything the people expect. Most of the responsibility falls on Congress, and the President himself is checked upon by the Supreme Court and by Congress. So, if Bush is as evil and corrupt as the media would want people to believe, then why hasn’t Congress with its liberal majority stepped in?
My big fear is having Obama enable socialism due more to the very likely Democratic majority that is coming, the kind that probably would be close to veto-proof. I don’t think it will be that drastic, but I do see them getting the majority. The strategy for this election year was focusing on the presidency with McCain, since focusing on too many individual campaigns might have dwindled resources and not worked.
Part of my fear lies in the fact that once something has been done, it is much harder to remove later. As bad as Carter was, those Cabinet positions he created are still around, as well as some of his initiatives, which have set us back and we are still paying for.
So regardless of who’s president, what matters most is who’s in Congress. The president can only enable Congress, and I’m pretty sure that a Democrat would sign most if not all the bills passed by a Congress that is led by Democrats. Every day that Pelosi is Speaker of the House is another day that this country heads in the wrong direction.
anderson, your comments on Congress are right on the money.
I agree.
AMA, I am simply saying that we can express the concern without name calling. In short, you talk about the sin, not the sinner. And I don’t think Obama is quite there yet but I agree the temptation and inclination seems to be there.
It is not only Obama that I’m worried about. It is those that support him. It is not only Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright, but also those that signed a letter supporting Ayers and the congregation of Wright’s church. On the radio yesterday (Yes the one on which they would apply the “Fairness Doctrine”) I heard a self avowed Obama supporter answer this question: Do you agree with the idea “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?
Caller: Yes!
Host: Do you know who said that?
Caller: No.
Not one word has come out of Obama’s mouth to make me believe that he has read Adam Smith or Ayn Rand, but I suspect he has read Alinsky and Marx.
Ivan Ivanovich:
Re: “It is not only Obama that I’m worried about. It is those that support him.”
Get a load of some of his supporters here
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/secret_of_obama_tax_planned_re.html .
Yes, I saw that one. It’s good if you like clueless.
Here’s some definitions from wwww.dictionary.com
Socialism:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Authoritarian:
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
Totalitarian:
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
Fascism:
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
I think all of those have very literal manifestations in the policies of a president Obama. Those are not “names” to be called, those are words to describe political and economic systems. I don’t believe it is unfair discourse to use those words when they are accurate in describing the policies that we observe. Let’s not pretend for the sake of political correctness that “socialist” is the new “N” word. Use words that are accurate, regardless of whether they are “poetic”.
AMAI:
Re: “Why waste time working out exactly which term fits best?”
“…Because voters are rationally ignorant (the costs of gaining particular kinds of information are greater than the benefits since one vote is essentially meaningless), politicians must employ a language designed to evoke emotion – enough emotion to motivate the right people to turn out and vote.”[1]
That’s why Obama [and probably Hillary had she won] keeps associating McCain with Bush, “Bush” being a name that “evokes emotion” in a lot of people. “Liberal,” “socialist,” and “Leftist” are also words that “evoke emotion” to “motivate the right people to turn out and vote.”
[1] Mitchell & Simmons, “Pathological Politics”, Beyond Politics
Patrick
You left off my favorite:
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
Furthermore, this definition does not due justice to the terror imposed under communism. The true nature of communism can only be appreciated by reading Gulag Archipelago.
All:
Just google “You have two cows”.
George:
I take your point, and “name-calling” e.g., use of swear words and other derogatory, inflammatory language which do nothing more than belittle the other person, is not necessary. But terms that are descriptive and even intended as negative are not necessarily out of bounds.
To add to the list of definitions, here’s Wiki’s for STATISM:
Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:
1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
2. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
3. The belief that a political group should maintain a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area.
There is no precise definition of how much state intervention represents statism. Thus, at one extreme, some anarchists consider that the mere existence of a state is enough to make a country statist, while at the other extreme it is argued that only the most rigid totalitarian systems are truly statist. Usually, however, the term “statism” is used with a negative or derogatory connotation, in reference to something that the speaker considers to be an example of too much state intervention.
The term tends to be used most often with respect to economic policies. For instance, Merriam-Webster defines statism as a “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.” Advocates of economic liberalism typically use the term “statism” to refer to any economy that does not conform to the standard of laissez-faire capitalism. “Statism” is also used to refer to specific policies in countries that would not be identified as statist overall (for example, the state monopoly on mail delivery in the United States).
I would just add to the foregoing that I do not consider ALL government to be statist. There is a proper function for government that is extremely beneficial. It is necessary to protect rights; it’s when government takes it upon itself to infringe and abridge rights that it is malevolent and harmful.
Re: “…when government takes it upon itself to infringe and abridge rights that it is malevolent and harmful.”
Of course the key word here is “rights”. What are often loosely referred to as “rights” are in fact mere privileges, or something entirely different, like “authority”.
Rights to life, liberty & property are not “mere privileges.”
George,
“Whichever man wins November 4th, it will be critical that we establish civil discourse through which to debate, disagree and confront. No conservative or liberal should be asked to abandon honestly held views (provided they are not beyond the pale) — that would be unAmerican. But those views should be tested against reality. The problem this election is that the media has failed to do its objective duty, which has helped fuel the frustration on the right side of the discussion.”
This paragraph is moderate, reasonable and above all wise. I believe it captures the essence of this election season and suggests a standard to live by that is ultimately humane and American. In the end, whoever holds the presidency, from radical leftwing illuminati to hardened conservative, we have to find a way to live in peace with one another and respect our differences.
AMAI:
Can’t you read?
AMAI
“Rights to life, liberty & property are not “mere privileges.”"
Considering the arguments in the public square and in the SCOTUS concerning abortion, fairness doctrine, and emanate domain it seems these three concepts are NOT absolute. So, what makes you believe that they are not “mere privileges”? Is it a right to receive a check in the form of a tax refund if you have paid NO tax?
jeaned
How do we respect those that blame Bush for everything when we know that many problems were out of his control or started well before his tenure?
AMAI,
There is another, broader, and less emotion-laden definition of statism; and I am surprised your source does not mention it. Statism is any of many theories of government, institutions, and political practices placing the state above individuals. It is a belief in government as a positive value. Governments vested in serving institutions rather than individuals are statist. Governments by and for the people qualify, but only those in which individual rights take a lesser place to those of the state or collective (e.g., the French Terror of 1793-94 and Directorate 1795-1899). Thus, the statist sees government as the answer and less the problem. This makes statism the more general case of both republican and socialist government. George Bush has demonstrated he’s a statist because he sees government as the solution in a number of novel venues that are best left to individuals to manage (e.g, drug subsidies, education, social security reform). He is much less the statist, however, than any Democrat because his agenda is much less socialist.
Monarchies vest sovereignty in a supreme individual or class geared to serve its interests, making monachies non-statist. Ditto for theocracies, though the distinction may not seem thin. The real distinction, then, is whether a particular government acts in ways that serve people as individuals or disregards the individual in favor of the the many or the state; and the statist is anyone supporting this approach or view of government.
Also see:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~kimball/sttism.htm
http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm
http://statismwatch.ca/