When words like "socialist" lose their meaning
 |
| Vladimir Lenin, still dead. (AP Photo/Sergei Karpukhin, File) |
Reader John Lieto made a good point on the previous blog post about John Murtha, but obscured it within a contention that's just not valid. In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's editorial board, Murtha predicted that Barack Obama would carry Pennsylvania on Election Day, but added that racism in the western part of the state (e.g., the area he represents) would diminish Obama's margin of victory.
Like many on the right side of the political spectrum, Lieto was rankled by the suggestion that when people oppose Obama, racism is the explanation. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for "that one," including his lack of experience, his flirtation with protectionism, his eagerness to raise taxes on the upper brackets, and his apparent willingness to violate an ally's sovereignty in pursuit of U.S. military objectives. Add to that his stance on abortion and other social issues, and you've got a pretty full dossier of Things Conservatives Don't Like About Liberals.
But Lieto didn't cite those reasons. Instead, echoing a point I'm seeing in a growing number of comments on our blog, on our website and in stories from the campaign trail, he wrote:
"Some of us are not voting for Obama because he is an avowed socialist, not because he is black."
The "avowed socialist" meme springs from Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment. But that's even more of a leap than saying John McCain's a socialist because he wants to nationalize troubled mortgages, or that George Bush is an imperialist because he ordered the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Remember what socialism is: an economic and political philosophy that rejects free markets and private ownership in favor of government control of the systems of production. You can't honestly look at Obama's positions on the economy and call him an "avowed socialist." You can complain about the degree to which his tax plan would redistribute wealth, but such redistribution lies at the heart of America's progressive income tax, Medicare, Social Security and many elements of the farm program. (For a nice review of industrialized nations' tax codes, check out this New Yorker blog post.) Campaigns are filled with hyperbole, but sometimes an exaggeration is so great, it makes it hard to acknowledge even the kernal of truth at the core of an argument.
Sorry to pick on you, Mr. Lieto. If you were the only one posting comments like that, I'd let it go. But there have been so many in recent days....
The only reason that people can not see Obama for the socialist that he is, is because the country has already adopted so many socialist solutions. Rather than letting free market systems ebb and flow as is their natural course, the government has intervened without wisdom or oversight.
As long as there is corruption in our leadership, there is opportunity for more intervention, more socialism. He may not be as red as Putin, yet...but that's only because the whole of government is already so pinko.
Get rid of mandatory social security, indexed taxes, welfare, bailouts and free rides. Taxation without representation is what's killing this republic. A republic depends on leadership that has some character and moral fiber.
Maybe this experiment in capitalism is over....oh wait, that's what Obama said.
Posted by: askmieke | November 24, 2008 at 10:37 AM
"KILL ALL THE PEOPLE. BREAK UP THEIR CARS AND APARTMENTS. BRING THE REVOLUTION HOME. KILL YOUR PARENTS. THAT'S WHERE IT'S REALLY AT". ---Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, 1970 ....friend, collegue and supporter of Barack Hussein Obama
Posted by: Aroleflin | October 31, 2008 at 08:33 AM
The bailout was socialist, except that only the private losses of the rich and powerful who took unreasonable risks were foisted onto taxpayers, as opposed to health, education, or welfare benefits. But wait, McCain says emergency measures call for a retreat from free-market principles - just not the emergencies of being uninsured, poor, homeless, or unable to afford a university education, evidently.
Posted by: Luke | October 29, 2008 at 07:05 PM
Let's review the 110th Congress Session 1 of 2007 Senate Voting Records.
Party Percent is defined as the percentage voting with one's Party Majority either Yea or Nay.
Senator Party Percent Vote with Sanders Percent
John McCain 88% 34%
Jeff Sessions 89% 36%
Jon Kyl 86% 30%
Mitch McConnell (Party Leader) 92% 35%
Bernard Sanders (Independent) 95% 100%
Barrack Obama 96% 92%
Barbara Boxer 96% 89%
Dianne Feinstein 94% 85%
Harry Reid (Party Leader) 96% 92%
If Barrack Obama an average of votes 94% (97% in 2008) of the time with a "Democratic-socialist" does that fact make him and his Democratic Party lending towards "Socialism".
Lending towards Socialism is voting with Senator Sanders over 60% of the time.
Lending away from Socialism is voting with Senator Sanders less than 40% of the time.
Null Lending is between 41% and 59% voting with Senator Sanders.
Here are the Facts:
1. Senator Bernard Sanders is a self-described democratic-socialist
.
a. What this means is lending towards Socialism as I have defined it.
b. Authorizing legislation and voting to his ideology is NOT a stretch to believe this. After all don't Senators vote on their principals?
2. Senator Obama has voted an average of 94% with Senator Sanders.
3. Senator Sanders votes 95% of the time with the Democratic majority.
a. How does this fact make him Independent?
b. Senator Susan Collins voted 67% of the time with her Republican party in 2007 but voted against all of Senator Sanders's legislation (3) that actuality made it to the floor of the Senate.
i. Is Senator Collins more Independent than Senator Sanders?
Conclusion:
If Senator Sanders votes with the Democratic Party 95% of time and Senator Obama voted 92% of the time with Senator Sanders then indeed Senator Obama and the Democratic Party are lending towards Socialism. This does not mean they are Democratic-socialist but may have democratic-socialist tendencies which can be agreeable or not agreeable to the Electoral College depending on your ideology but is not the tradition of American VALUES but seems to be the direction America is going.
I got my voting data at www.SenateReports.com
Posted by: DugFmJamul | October 29, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Let's get real folks. There is no need to take the radical right's label of socialism seriously. It is simply one of those "ist" labels that the right is so fond of using to garner a purely emotional response from people. Of course it is not accurate. For them that doesn't matter. What matters is that they want to stick Obama with a tag that has a strong negative emotional response from people. We have just been through eight years of this nonsense and I hope that the American people have been beat up enough to not fall for these tricks again.
Posted by: frankangelo | October 24, 2008 at 12:31 PM
A good time to review Edward R Murrow's words in regards to Joseph McCarthy's fear mongering...
"His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. [...] We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. "
Substitute Palin or Bachmann for McCarthy and the similarities are frightning.
Posted by: Ol' Whip | October 23, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Jon,
Ok, I'll concede the New Party issue. That was really more of a digression on media double standards than an argument against Obama anyway. I still maintain that the Chicago example is relevant, though. Three points:
1. Although you are correct that Obama was never in Chicago's "local" government he was an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004. Shouldn't that make him at least somewhat accountable for Chicago's condition? Governor Palin inherited a state that was run by a corrupt Republican machine and she took substantive steps to clean it up. Obama never stood up to the notoriously corrupt Democratic machine in Illinois. Quite the contrary actually.
2. It is true that Obama was not in charge of Chicago's public school system, but he did lead an expensive project to reform it. The only executive experience on Senator Obama's resume is the Chairmanship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which took on the task of improving Chicago's abysmal public schools. The CAC spent over $100 million dollars, but recorded no improvements in education. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the CAC funneled money to a network of leftwing organizations like ACORN rather than investing it in schools. If Obama is elected to the presidency he will be appointing people who will be influential in shaping the nation's educational policies. Will they be mainstream educators, or will they be like the leftist radicals who the CAC relied upon to fix Chicago's schools?
3. Most importantly, the article I linked seems to lay much of the blame for Chicago's condition on public employee unions, which form the institutional base of Obama's movement. Already Senator Obama is promising to rush through legislation to eliminate secret balloting in union elections and to make other changes in order to reward those unions.
Posted by: Aldo | October 23, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Wow, Aldo -- sneaking in the Maxist accusations now?!? Maybe it's unfair to mention this? Come on. Why is it so hard to believe that Obama's in the political mainstream? Is Warren Buffet wrong about the guy? Paul Volcker? Or should we wonder about their Marxist ties, too? :-)
Throwing scary labels around is not a persuasive form of argumentation, and it's well beneath your capabilities. Ditto with trying to hold people responsible for work they didn't do -- I mean really, since when was Obama in Chicago's local government? Stick to points like Obama's tax rebate proposal, which is such a bad idea, it doesn't need to be wrapped in hyperbole.
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 23, 2008 at 01:29 PM
I suspect that some of the people who are calling Senator Obama a socialist are basing this claim on the evidence of his involvement with the Marxist New Party in the 1990s. Maybe it is unfair to mention this. The Los Angeles Times certainly has not. The media has spent a lot of ink speculating about whether or not Governor Palin was a member of a radical secessionist political party in Alaska, though. (She wasn't). By that standard I would think that Senator Obama's political affiliations are also fair game.
The labels are not important. I agree with Annie that Senator Obama's policies will lead to perverse incentives that will be bad for our economy. If anyone doubts this, just look at what happened to Chicago, which is a good model for Obama's economic policies.
At a time when 75% of the American people (by income level) are paying only about 10% of the income taxes I think it is fair to say that not many people actually have a financial stake in Federal government spending, or any "skin in the game." Senator Obama wants to "rebate" money to people who are paying no taxes at all, based on an economically incoherent argument about payroll taxes. So, with the Social Security system headed toward actuarial insolvency we should cut people a check and explain to them that it represents a type of punitive damage award to punish the Federal government for having asked them to contribute to the Social Security system in the past? That sounds like a perverse incentive to me.
The leftwing blogosphere and the MSM media are still focused on Governor Palin's wardrobe this week. (I notice that Patt Morrison is all over this big story, which means Rutten, Brooks and Rainey will not be far behind). So I guess we'll have to wait until after the election to get some details about the "change" that awaits us.
Posted by: Aldo | October 23, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Thanks for sharing, some good food for thought. For what its worth I get there is a difference, federalism vs socialism. So call it what you willI "fabian socialism" or "new class"... no matter I disagree with it. The bailout has its socialism tendencies in terms of them getting involved with ownership of companies which certainly concerns me. Hopefully there is a good exit strategy. Taxing someone at a higher income to "spread the wealth around" is wrong. We should be fairly taxed. To do so is unjust and hard to say its not a punishment for one's good work ethic and hardwork. But with that said I do understand the need certain programs to run our country or federalism (for defense, judiciary, executive duties etc). It is our duty to contribute our part via taxes in this nature. However I disagree with how big gov't has gotten. The gov't never seems to adhere to its budget, living within its means. Then wants more rather than re-evaluting and finding ways to run more efficiently like we all have to. Its also been stretched to take care of too many social programs that are better left to each citizen that with lower taxes would be more plausible. With that said I am in the less than $100,000 category. But no matter what bracket, I think that we all are taxed too much and as a country our priorities need to be re-examined and reduce/eliminate debt. As an Americans we deserve to have more of our hard earned money in our own pocket benefiting our families as we see fit. Re; public financing for campaigns I appreciate the point... but isn't the idea to avoid the special interests from pressuring our candidates with their agenda by their contributions or ultimately buying their way. I simply want candidates focused on what their constituents want/need and to run fair campaigns as it should be. Thanks for the feedback! God bless!
Posted by: Annie | October 22, 2008 at 05:29 PM
Jon, your semantic point is absolutely correct. As a fellow writer (or at least a fellow who writes a lot, mostly here) I understand that it can be irritating to see words used incorrectly. Obama is not a socialist according to the dictionary or textbook definition of the word. Based on his voting record and political alliances I think a case could be made that the Senator is a socialist in the broader folk or colloquial sense, but given how hard his campaign has worked to hide that history the adjective "avowed" hardly seems appropriate.
Still, you may be generating more heat than light on the subject with this semantic quibble. I think that we can expect an Obama administrtion and solidly Democratic congress to expand the sphere of government at the expense of the private sector, which is probably the heart of Mr. Lieto's complaint. (This echoes a theme of Jonah Goldberg's recent column in the LAT, about how the media is missing a story about the balance between individualism and collectivism in their coverage of the Joe The Plumber story). If Obama wins, the next four years will probably be a good time to get a unionized job with a government bureacracy, but it may not be a good time to start a small business.
Posted by: Aldo | October 22, 2008 at 04:43 PM
Hey, Mitchell -- I can't wait to see the 30-second ad on Fabian socialism. I wouldn't skip that one! :-)
Seriously, your critique of Obama is far more fair than saying he's "an avowed socialist," which seems to have become a talking point on the right. I don't agree with your assertion -- the Fabians carried all sorts of baggage that Obama has rejected, particularly in foreign policy -- but we could have a very good and productive debate over whether Obama's economic policy focuses in a Fabianesque way on achieving certain social results, as opposed to creating the right incentives and opportunities. (Or maybe we wouldn't debate that point because I'm guessing you and I would agree.)
But I'm quickly getting out of my depth here, so I'll stop now.
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 22, 2008 at 03:53 PM
Jon,
I would agree with you that a 4% rise in the top marginal rate isn't exactly' classic' socialism. And that 'classic' socialism involves ownership of the means of production. But I think it is fair to call Obama and adherent of Fabian Socialism in spirit, even if he doesn't realize it. Personally I see Obama as an almost perfect representative of what Milan Djilas called the New Class, . These have figured out that they are better of leaving a large productive class in place to function generally as they want, while the New Class skims off quite a bit.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | October 22, 2008 at 03:28 PM
Hi, Annie. I think you're confusing socialism with federalism. We collect money on a national level to fund things that we all have an interest in. That's been defined over the years to include funding for defense, the judiciary, certain types of research, retirees' health care, subsistence-level assistance for the poor, and so on. It's a long list, and I'd be the first to agree with you that it should be shorter. But every item on that list involves some redistribution of wealth, so you can't equate redistribution with socialism. The critical differentiator between socialism and our system of government (call it regulated free market capitalism, or capitalism with one invisible hand tied behind its back) is that a socialist government takes more than just a portion of the fruits of people's enterprise -- it takes the enterprise itself.
By the way, if you don't like the central government doing so much, why do you favor public financing of campaigns?
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 22, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Anyone can say its about funding goverment programs... I would encourage you to look up socialism. Our government shouldn't be in the business of taking care of everything for us. That is Socialism and it does involve doing this and redistributing wealth in the form of taxation. Taxation doesn't promote growth except for growth of government. I don't think it benefits anyone to give such control to the government by depending on them for everything. We need more money in our own pockets to take care of our needs as we see fit. We also shouldn't punish those who have worked hard and made good choices for their families. The government needs to learn how to live on a budget as the average Amercian has to. Its all about responsible living by all. On a side note, why isn't the fact that Obama refused Public financing after verbally committing to it being made more of an issue? Public financing is supposed to be in teh candidates and voters best interests as it avoids one being pressured by their contributor's agendas, not who can buy the white house or whatever it is they are after. Its supposed to be about the voters!
Posted by: Annie | October 22, 2008 at 01:59 PM
Actually, John McCain and Sarah Palin were likening Obama's policies to socialism just last week. See, for example, this story.
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 22, 2008 at 01:41 PM
Where is this coming from? I see this all the time on newspaper message boards. Is this line being repeated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity et al?
Posted by: Gus | October 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM