RSS Feed MenuIs Barack Obama a socialist? Astonishingly, the media, with rare exception, have all but ignored the ideas of people who ought to know: self-declared socialists. Socialist Party USA co-chairman Billy Wharton agreed to answer a few questions for me, and tells FrumForum what American socialism would look like, why he thinks that Obama is a crony for business interests, and why true socialists find virtually nothing to celebrate in his presidency.
FF: Thank you so much for your time. I’m a little astonished that so few people are asking self-avowed socialists about this “controversy.” I guess a good place to start, then, would be right at the beginning: just what is socialism?
BW: Democratic socialism is a political philosophy based on two central notions. The first is that all people in society have the right to the basic necessities of life, including housing, a job, health care and a clean environment. We see these things as unalienable human rights. Second, and connected, we believe that the principles of democracy need to be applied to the economy … this means things like worker self-management of businesses, consumer cooperative organizing and participatory budgeting.
FF: Yes-or-no question: is the president a socialist?
BW: No.
FF: Why do so many people think he is?
BW: One important reason is that a seriously disorganized Republican Party is attempting to recover from a string of electoral defeats by allowing the far-right to employ a tried and true practice in American politics – red-baiting. The key element of this tactic is that it provides a simple explanation for rather complex social and economic problems. A section of people living in the disarray of the economic crisis that started in 2008 have chosen to adopt this simple explanation.
The danger for the Republican Party is that the Tea Party, which is a seriously top-down movement, will begin to exercise control over the Party. Second danger, is that they are re-introducing the term socialist to American politics. The far-right is trying to control this definition, but this is difficult to do. Our task as socialists is to demonstrate not only that Obama is not a socialist, but that socialist ideals offer better answers to the problems that everyday people face under capitalism.
FF: A lot of conservatives would say that your description of what socialism fundamentally is — “all people in society have the right to the basic necessities of life – including housing, a job, healthcare and a clean environment” — sounds a lot like a typical Obama speech. In what areas is the president falling short of socialist goals?
BW: I would encourage these folks to take a serious look at the policies Obama has enacted over the past two years. The election campaign is over, so there is no more ambiguity about what Obama might or might not do. On healthcare, Obama and the Democrats in the Congress allowed the health insurance companies to write the healthcare reform bill. This means that instead of the single-payer national program that socialists advocated, Obama supported a bill that will allow private companies to loot taxpayer money while selling junk healthcare plans to the uninsured.
On the bank bailout, more of the same. Instead of the national jobs program that we called for, Obama poured billions into the banks. Financial reform? Same deal. Obama and the Democrats allowed the Republicans to negotiate out the Volcker Rule that would have placed more serious regulation on the financial sector. Finally, Obama failed miserably during the BP oil explosion. Instead of a nationalization order, which socialists supported, BP received polite invitations to lunch at the White House. Where is the socialism in all of this?…
FF: Is there anything Obama has done at all that’s given true socialists cause to celebrate? Or has he shown himself to be a down-the-line crony for business interests?
BW: Throughout his administration President Obama has demonstrated a commitment to defend the interests of corporations and the richest 5% of society. And now, his Deficit Commission appears to be targeting public programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Socialists are faced with the task of building movements to defend these programs and developing initiatives that move towards greater economic democracy. Obama’s not an ally in the struggle, if anything his administration has been a hindrance.
FF: Let me play devil’s advocate here. What of Obama’s history? Saul Alinsky, the original “community organizer,” has become something of a household name as of late. Now, Alinsky was a proud leftist, and the movement he launched had openly leftist — and, in many instances, socialist — goals. What do you say to those who would contend that, given his background as a community organizer, Obama must secretly sympathize with socialist goals, even if he disagrees with folks like you on tactics? (For instance: your call for healthcare nationalization had literally no chance of passing Congress.)
BW: There was community organizing well before Alinsky, however, he’s been quite influential in post WWII organizing efforts. I wouldn’t call Alinsky a proud leftist. In fact, he was explicitly anti-ideological and advocated avoiding electoral politics. Socialism is a political ideology and the Socialist Party USA seeks to create social change, in part, through electoral campaigns. So, socialists don’t draw much inspiration from Alinsky.
Neither, it seems, does Obama. When given the opportunity to defend ACORN, Obama refused to come clean about his connections to the group. Thereby allowing the right wing to dismantle the organization. This was the first sign that Obama intended to distance himself from any grassroots political efforts. And we can see the same process underway among immigrant rights groups and the marriage equality movement. This is why I say I’m not even sure that Obama is a liberal and the idea that he’s a socialist is simply absurd.
FF: Are there any politicians in the United States that SPUSA feels comfortable with right now?
BW: We are committed to presenting our own candidates in local, state and Federal elections throughout the country. On occasion we also engage in electoral coalitions with other third parties. We see no possibilities for progressive change inside either the Democrats or Republicans. The Republicans have been the party of social and economic conservatism and eventually neoconservatism since post World War II. The Democrats have acted as their partners by pursuing neoliberal policies and managing wars of aggression from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. Independents such as Bernie Sanders and progressives like Dennis Kucinich tend to fall into line with the prevailing political opinions in the Democratic Party. This was particularly true during the recent healthcare and financial reform debates. If Americans want real political change it will have to happen outside of the two party system.
FF: Finally, where is SPUSA directing its resources right now? What issues are most burning to Socialists at this moment?
BW: We’re aiming to build local organizations in every state in the country. Since the capitalist crisis began in 2008 we have established new locals in Memphis, Oklahoma City and Wichita. This is the first time since the McCarthy period that socialists are organizing in these locations. We intend to continue and extend this process.
The issues that are critical to us include reversing the SB 1070 anti-immigrant law in Arizona, stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and advancing our ideas about economic democracy. Overall, we hope to create a society based on socialist values of solidarity, compassion and justice.
FF: Anything else you’d like to add?
BW: I thank you for this opportunity to present our ideas about democratic socialism. I hope that other people will give us a fair hearing. I think that they will find that socialism for the 21st century offers the best hope for the global advance of human development. I encourage people to visit our website and examine the ideas that we support. We also have a weekly WebZine.
DeepSouthPopulist // Aug 10, 2010 at 9:16 pm
“Don’t confuse the intentionally undemocratic Senate with the will of the people.”
Obama couldn’t move his first choice — health care with a robust public option — with 59 votes from his own party and a big majority in the House. His proposal for a public option was way out of step even among Democrats.
drdredel // Aug 10, 2010 at 11:51 pm
@DeepSouth
The reality is that most people (if you’re talking about a democratic opinion) have about as much understanding of what the public option means, or what the current insurance based scheme is, or what the whole tangled mess of our health care system is as they do about molecular bio chemistry.
There’s a lot of hullabaloo about it, but people are basically totally ignorant of how the various cogs and gears of our health care system grind against one another and are mostly inclined to “want” or “not want” whatever it is that their particular politician of choice has sweetened for them or terrified them against, respectfully.
The fact is that you (DeepSouth) can’t afford medical care. Nor can anyone else who posts to this blog. You can’t pay for it out of pocket because your pockets aren’t that deep. So, the health care system is, by its nature, a ponzi scheme. Everyone pays into the scheme and the scheme pays the doctors for the small minority that actually needs treatment. Reasonable people can disagree who, between insurance companies or various government agencies can do a better job of managing the kitty, but again, the nature of the scheme is FABULOUSLY convoluted and to blanketly decree that THIS system is necessarily better than THAT system, across the board, is to not understand either of them.
So… what Obama wanted (or seemed to want) is to start untangling the unholy mess that is our medical compensatory system. This is by no means a Socialist ploy (unless you mean that it’s a common sense ploy and Socialists are generally predisposed towards common sense). What he got was a lot of Republican obstructionism, which was to be expected. However, it says nothing about his political leanings and while he did campaign for a more broad government involvement of the system, he seemed to relent pretty easily in the face of the (arguably idiotic) opposition.
David has noted in the past that the solution we got was pretty crappy compared to what we could have had, if the “loyal” opposition bothered to actually produce some coherent ideas rather than sit around barking “no” like a bunch of spoiled 4 year olds.
pampl // Aug 11, 2010 at 12:48 am
franco2: Actually, Chavez is a socialist under that definition. I have no idea if Sanders is – I don’t pay him any attention – but if he says he is then he’d probably know best.
What you call “socialism” bears no resemblance to the US govt. or to Obama’s policies. I don’t have any particular problem with your definition, but that means instead of using the wrong word you’re being wildly inaccurate. The whole thrust of the article is that Obama’s done nothing like what you’re talking about and that’s why the far Left doesn’t like him. Obamacare, for example, redistributes money from young and healthy workers to old or sick workers. It has no money for the unemployed, who are covered by different programs. The bank bailouts went to some of the hardest workers (and biggest tax payers) there are.
drdredel // Aug 11, 2010 at 1:10 am
@Franco,
The problem here is that you want to ascribe a label when none is really necessary (nor really fitting). I’m not sure if you feel that we currently live in a socialist democracy powered by capitalist industry or a capitalist republic powered by socialist inspired welfare programs, but however you choose to regard the US in its current state, you have to admit that there is no shortage of government programs that are funded by the tax payers and then aim to serve those tax payers in one way or another.
Examples include our military, police, road construction, various licensing agencies (DMV, Fish and Wildlife et al) etc. etc.
Now… you might argue (and I think the vast majority of the populace would staunchly disagree) that all these programs would be more efficient or otherwise better if they were privately owned and more importantly, if their regulation was handled exclusively by market forces. I don’t know if you feel this way, but if you do not then you too subscribe to some degree of government intervention in the handling of [fill in what you think government does well and is worth your tax dollars here].
So, the question really is, what differentiates actual “Socialism” from allowing the government to handle various socially necessary tasks that it (arguably) does better than the private sector.
The answer is Socialism, at its core, is a system that eliminates the Capital markets and aims to have ALL private sector ventures handled by the government. As I think you’ve already acknowledged, no one (other than the subject of the interview in this column, and maybe not even him) is really in favor of such an arrangement. The Swedes, amongst whom I have lived at length and who pride themselves on their “socialist” politics, have absolutely no interest in such an arrangement either. The fact is (and since you’ve traveled extensively, as you’ve said in an alternate thread you know this to be true) the actual, day to day difference for people living in Sweden, or France, or Germany, or Spain, or Italy vs. those of us who live in the States is virtually indistinguishable. They spend a little more in taxes and get a little more in various services.
Even if Obama wanted to transform us into a French style “socialist” nation, the actual effect it would have on how people went about their business here would be negligible.
The tea partiers (whoever the hell they might be, you have yet to convince me that there is any cohesive philosophy that doesn’t boil down to a lot of slogans and whining) make a lot of noise about the impending apocalypse if Obama were to have his way and shove this nation into the Socialist meat grinder. But the reality is that Obama has shown (as this article and others on this topic illustrates) exactly no signs of heading in that direction, but even if her WERE to, it should at most be cause for a rational debate as to what the negative effects of such a direction might be, because the reality is that if there are any, they are probably balanced by the positive ones, and even if they are not, it’s all just degrees of variation on the current theme that are at worst negligible.
franco 2 // Aug 11, 2010 at 8:27 am
Examples include our military, police, road construction, various licensing agencies (DMV, Fish and Wildlife et al) etc. etc.
Great examples except these account for a TINY part of tax expenditures. The military being the ONLY federal tax consumer you mention…all the others are local and state (except for Interstate Hiway system)
There are people on both side who will agree that we spend too much on our military as well.
…The answer is Socialism, at its core, is a system that eliminates the Capital markets and aims to have ALL private sector ventures handled by the government….
Well, in case you didn’t know government IS controlling all aspects of commerce in this country and increasingly so, controlling more and more. It may not be *handling* every transaction, but they are controlling, with FORCE, every salient aspect, and what is alarming to many of us, want much, much more control. Nancy P and Barry O want MORE. They want their Precious. Its all for our own good you know.
They want more money from us all. All for our own good dontcha know.
When the government borrows 26 billion dollars from taxpayers in order to fund bankrupt States need to keep police forces and teachers something is wrong. A corporation run like that would go bankrupt. People would be fired for incompetence. But the government just spends and spends with no end in sight, and there is no accountability. Theyve bought the media and demonize any media outlet that challenges them.
Hang onto the fiction that government is good all you like. I believe they have proven themselves unworthy of leadership, and certainly have forsaken the public trust in fiscal matters.
franco 2 // Aug 11, 2010 at 8:33 am
Drdredle said,
So, the health care system is, by its nature, a ponzi scheme. Everyone pays into the scheme and the scheme pays the doctors for the small minority that actually needs treatment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, no that’s quite wrong. A ponzi scheme is not the same as insurance. What you describe is INSURANCE.
Can the health insurance industry, as it is now formulated in the new Health Care bill, become a ponzi scheme with the backing of the Federal Government? Yes, it probably will just like SS did.
drdredel // Aug 11, 2010 at 12:21 pm
@Franco
ponzi scheme… insurance… same thing different word.
Seriously though, I’d like you to explain to me how you feel the pre-health care bill insurance companies’ handling of the coverage of the populace was better/less driving towards the bankrupting of everyone actually “covered” than the post health care bill insurance companies?
Also, please answer the following:
1) Is it reasonable for insurance companies (without which, we agree, normal, non mega rich people, can’t afford to get treatment for anything other than checkups… and sometimes not even those) to have the authority/freedom to drop customers for technical reasons, such as the customer’s failure to accurately detail every flu they may have sought treatment for in years prior to their being insured
2) is it reasonable for insurance companies to align themselves with various doctors so that when a person switches jobs (or goes to work for themselves) they are likely to have to find a new physician?
3) is it reasonable for people who eat at McDonalds 4 times a week and drink gallons of Pepsi and do no exercise whatsoever to pay the same amount for health insurance as those that eat only organic produce and run 5 miles a day?
4) is it reasonable to assume that “the market” will coerce these corporations into more competitive practices, even given that no evidence of such coercion has taken place over the last 30 years?
drdredel // Aug 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm
@franco
Great examples except these account for a TINY part of tax expenditures. The military being the ONLY federal tax consumer you mention…all the others are local and state (except for Interstate Hiway system)
Ok, but the point is that you’re dodging my central point. If you agree that these ARE socialist systems (in their essence) then it’s just a matter of degree and reasonable people can disagree what level of control the government ought to have and over what. You paint Polosi and Obama as people who, given their druthers, would nationalize everything and that is simply a caricature of reality.
Granted they want government to be more involved, but it seems perfectly reasonable (to me) given the REAL WORLD reality of what happened when everything was de-regulated. You can give me excuses till the cows come home but as far as I’m concerned it quacks like a duck! Unregulated markets simply don’t work and you’ll be hard pressed to find even the most conservative economists who still claim they do! So, it boils down to what the necessary amount of regulation should be and the pendulum is now swinging back towards “too much” which is the way it goes.. it swings that way, it swings back… nothing to fret about… everything is fine.
LauraNo // Aug 11, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I think no one should be calling dems socialists unless they also call republicans fascists since it seems to me there is equal evidence (or lack thereof) for doing both or neither.
mickster99 // Sep 6, 2010 at 2:27 am
Well Obama may not be a socialist. But he’s definitely a Maoist Nazi Fascist. Glenn Beck said so and I believe it. All the reputable rightwing media say so. So it must be. And on top of that we are now in the End Times and religious freedom is at an end. And Obama is implementing the Alinksi plan to perfection. Glenn Beck sez so and I believe it. We don’t even know that we have already lost all our freedoms and that Obama’s New Black Panthers are the new Waffen SS and will be rounding up Tea Baggers for internment in the FEMA trailer prisons set up in Louisiana. Ok, I don’t believe any of this stuff. Just thought I’d try on a total paranoid hysterical point of view. Feels really stupid.
Is It Dumb to Call Obama a Socialist? // Sep 28, 2010 at 6:15 pm
[...] Frum’s Frum Forum interviews the leader of some fringe left-wing group called the Socialist Party USA. I believe this group is [...]
MyExWifeIsAWhore.com » You are a “foo-needer” // Jan 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm
[...] Even the people who are publicly part of the US Socialist movement say he’s not a Socialist. [...]