RSS Feed Menu
Is 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.
yep the socialist tag is propaganda. i won’t post this list again for a while but you have to admit after hearing from the socialists it is fitting to post it again.
The Art of Propaganda: 7 Common Tactics Used to Influence Behavior
1. Name-calling
This involves the use of words to connect a person or idea to a negative concept. The aim is to make a person reject something without examining the evidence because of the negative associations attached to it.
Examples of words include ‘Terrorist‘, ‘Nazi‘ and ‘Queer’.
Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing.
2. Glittering Generalities
The opposite of name-calling, this involves the use of highly valued concepts and beliefs which attract general approval and acclaim. These are vague, emotionally attractive words like ‘freedom‘, ‘honor‘ and ‘love‘.
This method works because these concepts/words mean different things to different people, while still having a positive implication.
When someone talks to us about democracy, we immediately think of our own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas we learned at home, at school, and in church.
Our first and natural reaction is to assume that the speaker is using the word in our sense, that he believes as we do on this important subject. This lowers our ’sales resistance’ and makes us far less suspicious..
3. Transfer
This is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something you respect and revere to something the propagandist would have you accept. One does this by projecting the qualities of an entity, person or symbol to another through visual or mental association.
This stimulates the recipient and makes him/her identify with recognized authorities.
In the Transfer device, symbols are constantly used. The cross represents the Christian Church. The flag represents the nation. Cartoons like Uncle Sam represent a consensus of public opinion. Those symbols stir emotions. At their very sight, with the speed of light, is aroused the whole complex of feelings we have with respect to church or nation.
4. Testimonial
The aim of testimonial is to leverage the experience, authority and respect of a person and use it to endorse a product or cause. Testimonials appeal to emotions instead of logic because they generally provide weak justifications for the product or a cause of action.
‘The Times said,’ ‘John L. Lewis said…,’ ‘Herbert Hoover said…’, ‘The President said…’, ‘My doctor said…,’ ‘Our minister said…’ Some of these Testimonials may merely give greater emphasis to a legitimate and accurate idea, a fair use of the device; others, however, may represent the sugar-coating of a distortion, a falsehood, a misunderstood notion, an anti-social suggestion…”
5. Plain Folks
A technique whereby the propagandist positions him or herself as an average person just like the target audience, thereby demonstrating the ability to empathize and understand the concerns/feelings of the masses.
One may perform ordinary actions or use language and mannerisms to reach the audience and cohere with their point of view.
We are all familiar with candidates who campaign as political outsiders, promising to “clean out the barn” and set things straight in Washington. The political landscape is dotted with politicians who challenge a mythical “cultural elite,” presumably aligning themselves with “ordinary Americans.” As baby boomers approach their sixth decade, we are no longer shocked by the sight of politicians in denim who listen to rock n roll.
6. Card Stacking
A way of manipulating audience perceptions by emphasizing one side of an argument which reinforces your position, while repressing/minimizing dissenting opinions. An example of this articles/media events which compare and contrast the best possible scenarios with the worse examples.
Assume a newspaper editor were in favor of the non-enforcement of immigration laws. Should the issue of immigration law enforcement ever be debated among legislators, the editor might publish articles and editorials that ignore all mention of illegal alien criminals, gang members, and prisoners and report only on decent, hard-working foreigners instead. This sort of card stacking could go on for weeks and influence public opinion on the issue.
7. Bandwagon
The basic premise for the bandwagon technique is to suggest that ’since everyone is doing it, you should too’. It’s aim to persuade people to follow a general trend by reinforcing the human need to participate on the winning side. One can suggest to an audience that he or she will lose out by not moving with the rest of the crowd, thus preying on their insecurities and fears.
With the aid of all the other propaganda devices, all of the artifices of flattery are used to harness the fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals common to a group. Thus is emotion made to push and pull us as members of a group onto a Band Wagon.
IN 1939 THE NEW YORK BASED INSTITUTE FOR PROPAGANDA ANALYSIS published an article on the seven common propaganda devices with the aim of encouraging critical, rational thinking amongst citizens. NOW YOU KNOW HOW THE SEVEN PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES WORK!!
More shallow silly nonsense. Of course Obama isn’t the same kind of Socialist this guy is. Apparently, no elected official is, including Bernie Sanders who actually labels himself a Socialist.
FF: Are there any politicians in the United States that SPUSA feels comfortable with right now?
NON ANSWER
so Obama isn’t a socialist, but he won’t say who IS. Nice duck of the question, yet Alex takes this guys word. Pretty sad.
I would also like Frum Forum to use this technique when the right is accused of being of some such IST. Racist, or fascist. Go to a real racist and ask if Andrew Brietbart is a racist. When Mr avowed racist says, no, then I’m sure you will take his word…the word of an EXPERT.
This is a really fun game. Andrew Brietbart gets called a racist by Shirley Sherod and Frum Forum comes to his defense by claiming that not only has Brietbart never hanged a black man from a tree, hes never once advocated it. Vindication! I mean, why bother with anything more than that if that’s the standard?
the first signs of detox from propaganda are???
Denial
Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
“I would also like Frum Forum to use this technique when the right is accused of being of some such IST. Racist, or fascist. Go to a real racist and ask if Andrew Brietbart is a racist. When Mr avowed racist says, no, then I’m sure you will take his word…the word of an EXPERT.”
I don’t know who this “Frum Forum” fellow is, but I have never called Andrew Breitbart a racist, and I have never said that the Tea Party is racist. I don’t even think that it has racist “elements,” either, whatever that means. I’m against the entire practice of painting with broad brushes like that. Calling someone a “racist” means little other than “I hate you.” Same goes, however, with “socialist” coming from the right. The right calls the left socialists; the left calls the right racists. Our discourse is totally out of control.
@jg — Unfortunately, Freudianism is utter nonsense and in the context of his dogma, ‘denial’ becomes a mechanism underlying the pseudo-scientific nature of ‘psychoanalysis,’ as Karl Popper so brilliantly revealed: if the patient accepts the diagnosis, it’s proof that psychoanalysis is accurate. If he rejects it, then it’s proof that he’s in denial and that psychoanalysis is accurate. You can’t lose!
Works very much the same way with this ‘racist’ and ‘socialist’ nonsense.
alex
his racist tag goes back to number one on the list i posted. it’s pavlov’s dog barking his conditioned tune. the sad part is the dog does not know he is conditioned. sorry franco it’s nothing personal against you, you are one of millions who chose the “snack” over critical thinking.
While BO might not be a pure socialist according to the precise standards of the American socialist party, he clearly supports elements of the first prong of the American socialist philosophy as defined in the interview.
BO has been caught on tape advocating for a single payer health system and criticizing the US Constitution for providing only negative as opposed to positive rights – negative rights say what the government cannot do (abridge free speech) whereas positive ones say what the government can or should do (provide “free” universal health care and jobs).
His original health care plan was so extreme and out of step with American values he couldn’t muster enough support within his own party to pass the bill. He had to settle for a water downed version of the bill, not by choice, but because of political opposition to radicalism within his own party.
Also, the American Socialist Party web site lists several ideas, policies and objectives that BO supports.
@DeepSouthPopulist — By that insane standard, the Republicans are a bunch of socialists, too. Wasn’t it Palin, Steele, Romney and company who were aghast over the prospect of slashing Medicare, a favorite program of socialists?
John Cornyn must be a socialist too, since he says that the GOP should run this fall against the fact that Obamacare included cuts to socialist Medicare.
I wrote something about this shortly Obamacare passed… http://www.frumforum.com/the-gop-embraces-entitlements
Now, see, unlike you pseudo-free-marketers, I actually support cuts to Medicare. But the Palins of the world need to make up their flippin’ minds.
“By that insane standard, the Republicans are a bunch of socialists, too”
True enough; that’s why I didn’t deny it.
The Republicans clearly support elements of socialism as well, such as the Bush drug legislation.
Perhaps we should debate which side supports more elements, polices, and positions associated with the socialist agenda, but without embracing pure socialism.
Is it BO or the Repubs? (Although I don’t have time to debate that now, I’d contend that BO wins that one by a mile).
I am not a Palin supporter, BTW.
@DeepSouthPopulist
“While BO might not be a pure socialist according to the precise standards of the American socialist party, he clearly supports elements of the first prong of the American socialist philosophy as defined in the interview. ”
A “not pure Socialist according to the ASP” is called … a Liberal in the US and a Social Democrat in Europe. In other words Obama is not a Socialist, he’s a Liberal or Social Democrat.
Obama’s health care plan was so out of touch with what the American people wanted, when he repeatedly told them about it they elected him with a walloping majority. Don’t confuse the intentionally undemocratic Senate with the will of the people
@everybody
I GOT it! We need to have a Socialist meter, measured in “ists” tacked to the back of the moniker, so mainstream Republicans can be Socialististists while Obama can be a Socialistististist and the Swedes can be Socialististististististists, and Billy Wharton can be a Socalististististististististististist.
Then when someone who is a Socalistist (like Palin) is called a Socialististist, she can get all indignant about the extraneous ist and defned her two istism against the spurious slur of being called a quadruple istist, like Obama!!
@Alex,
While many of Freud’s ideas have been proved wrong, you have to keep in mind that he is, nonetheless, still the father of modern psychotherapy and at least in this case, is right on the money.
Many of Darwin’s and Einstein’s ideas have also been either proved incorrect or incomplete, however, we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! Modern psychiatry doesn’t dispute denial in the way in which it is described here, regardless of its original source.
pampl
the ubiquitous republican tag phrase “what the american people want”
the “what the american people want” argument is a great example of the #2 & #7 propaganda techniques of generalities and the bandwagon. boehner uses the phrase all of the time to the point of being odd, it is ridiculous how often the statement comes out of his mouth. of course those who watch and believe in boehner repeat his words. pavlov snacks anyone?
they asked the american people back in 1967 what they thought of interracial marriage, 72% were opposed to it. the supreme court passed a law against it even after the polls.
the statement reminds me of the crook who has the christian fish on his business card. “trust me we share common values”
here is one from your man boehner i hope you repeat these words
BOEHNER (SORT OF) REJECTS ‘SOCIALIST’ TALK…. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) appeared on “Meet the Press” yesterday, and argued that Americans are “scared to death” of the Democrats’ domestic agenda.
Following up, host David Gregory asked whether Americans are “scared” in part because of over-the-top nonsense from the likes of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. “[D]on’t they get even more scared when you got the head of the Republican Party sending out an e-mail that, you know, to challenge the president and Democratic leaders for a ‘socialist power grab?’” Gregory asked. “I mean, is that appropriate conversation? Is this, did you really think the president’s a socialist?”
Boehner initially hedged, saying, “Listen, when you begin to look at how much they want to grow government, you can call it whatever you want.”
Gregory pressed further, asking,
“Do you think the president’s a socialist?” The Minority Leader said, “No,” as if the question itself was foolish.
Gregory added, “OK, but the head of the Republican Party is, is calling him that.”
Boehner replied, “Well, listen, I didn’t call him that and I’m not going to call him that.”
Calling something you don’t like propaganda is a great example of #2. That list is a great tool for morons because it lets you disagree with something without having to think critically in any way whatsoever, just recite numbers like you’re the Rainman.
pampl
how about calling lies propaganda.
even boehner does not think obama is a socialist! you would not know he said that if you listen to the GOP/tea party rhetoric.
so the minority leader does not think he is a socialist, the socialists don’t think he socialist and yet he is still a socialist.
life is way easier if one accepts ones own errors.
hubris is always at the heart of not being able to admit being wrong.
Hubris often indicates being out of touch with reality and overestimating one’s own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power
Obama a Socialist? He continues the wars, saves the bankers, corporations and insurance companies. Socialism is about bringing power into the hands of working people, not bankers and CEOs. Socialism is the movement to bring democracy, equality, freedom and justice to the entire society, the general cynicism notwithstanding.
Dan La Botz, Socialist Party candidate for U.S. Senate from Ohio
DanLaBotz.com
Follow me on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter
Alex Knepper // Aug 10, 2010 at 10:50 am
Alex, my point is merely that going to an avowed Socialist and asking IS OBAMA A SOCIALIST, is much like going to an avowed rabid racist and asking him if Andrew Brietbart is a racist. You will naturally get a NO response.
AND you did let him duck one of your questions..okay, not much you can do but you didn’t point out that, while Mr. Socialist expert claims Obama is not of his ilk, that he refused to say specifically who was or would be. This alone reduces his credibility, and to some extent yours.
Frum Forum did not attack Brietbart, but it isn’t defending him. They are defending Obama on the charge that he is a socialist, or as I would put it, his socialist tendencies.
Many here both writers and sympathetic commenters first define or redefine Socialism to this arcane narrow historical definition then claim Obama doesn’t fit that description. then proceed to claim that Republicans vote for social (ist) programs too and cite this as evidence that Democrats like Obama are therefore NOT socialists, when the fact REMAINS that Republicans CAN have statist and socialist tendencies too, which is exactly why the Tea Party movement has been against certain GOP candidates! It isn’t that hard to understand.
To pretend, as Frum does, that the word itself is some kind of epithet, some kind of outrageous charge that should only be reserved for true socialist cretins like, I dunno, Stalin or someone like him, is absurd.
The other argument, that we already have a pretty good start into the world of Socialism does nothing to refute the premise that we don’t want any MORE socialism, and that at some point the whole thing can tip into a socialist tyranny. Its pretty evident that once the Government has more than 50% control of the economy, that real socialism will likely follow. We are seeing it now from Obama, who is on the fast track, AND many GOPers who are on the slow track. There never has been in our history any significant reduction of Government. Once people are comfortable with their entitlements there is no way to vote them down. Look at Greece and France.
It is funny that many here seem to think that the GOP doesn’t have elements of socialism. Many conservatives like myself DO NOT absolve the GOP from blame. It isn’t an argument. Yes Nixon, Bush (both) and many GOP Senators are either socialists themselves OR are happy to trade their principles for a little electoral love.
There IS a difference, in that they are not necessarily wanting to race towards the socialist model, they are still beholden to capitalist interests and/or their constituents and perhaps are just like any other politicians addicted to government largesse and power.
Democrats are actively advocating various forms to enact more redistribution of wealth. This is basically socialist ideology, not merely a stray or unprincipled vote in the horse trading of Congress.
Alex, my point is merely that going to an avowed Socialist and asking IS OBAMA A SOCIALIST, is much like going to an avowed rabid racist and asking him if Andrew Brietbart is a racist. You will naturally get a NO response.
That’s not necessarily true- there was that avowed racist who said the Tea Party was racist and should own up to it.
Many here both writers and sympathetic commenters first define or redefine Socialism to this arcane narrow historical definition then claim Obama doesn’t fit that description. then proceed to claim that Republicans vote for social (ist) programs too and cite this as evidence that Democrats like Obama are therefore NOT socialists, when the fact REMAINS that Republicans CAN have statist and socialist tendencies too, which is exactly why the Tea Party movement has been against certain GOP candidates! It isn’t that hard to understand.
I sort of agree with this. You’re right that the TP is far to the right of the GOP- and it’s extremely far to the right of the American public. I think counting the vast majority of the US public, as well as the entirety of the rest of the developed world and most of the developing world, as “socialists” robs that word of any meaning, though.
Its pretty evident that once the Government has more than 50% control of the economy, that real socialism will likely follow. We are seeing it now from Obama, who is on the fast track, AND many GOPers who are on the slow track. There never has been in our history any significant reduction of Government.
The Scandinavian countries have governments accounting for about half the economy but they also have more dynamic and open economies than we do. I don’t know what your definition of socialism actually is, but it’s tough to imagine that it includes the kind of free, unfettered trade practiced by these countries.
Your last sentence is wrong. The size of government as a % of GDP was vastly reduced in the late teens and the late 40s. It was moderately reduced through the 90s, such that even Bush’s spending spree didn’t bring it to the levels it was at in 1990. If we look at other countries then it’s clear that when spending gets too high the government IS reduced. It’s just that “too high” is still much higher than what the US spends.
Democrats are actively advocating various forms to enact more redistribution of wealth. This is basically socialist ideology
No. Socialist ideology is workers controlling the means of production. The closest thing to that on the Dem’s plate is card check, which wouldn’t actually give workers control of the means production but would give (some of) them something closer to control.
Pampi,
No. Socialist ideology is workers controlling the means of production.
There you go again with the narrow definitions….
…It’s just that “too high” is still much higher than what the US spends…
Now we have crossed the line, dontcha think?
It doesn’t matter what you call it, Government redistributing wealth putting taxpayers into hopeless debt to fund government largesse is wrong. TPers are NOT far right wingers, they are concerned citizens. Is the opposite of Socialism Rightwingism according to you? Just wondering….
Perhaps the government WILL contract as a result of electoral politics. That would be great, no?
Or should government be larger and have MORE control? Whats your opinion?
there was that avowed racist who said the Tea Party was racist and should own up to it.
This is logic?
franco 2
uhh…. TP is a common word for toilet paper so reading your posts makes me wonder what kind of shiit you guys are really up to
There you go again with the narrow definitions….
If you’re going to claim something is socialism then you need an actual definition of socialism. If you have a different definition then feel free to offer it.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, Government redistributing wealth putting taxpayers into hopeless debt to fund government largesse is wrong. TPers are NOT far right wingers, they are concerned citizens. Is the opposite of Socialism Rightwingism according to you? Just wondering….
If taxpayers were being put into debt to fund govt. largesse it would be wrong. Govt. programs don’t operate that way though, and the people in debt are the recipients of govt. aid not the donors to it. Besides, 99% of people want the government to SOMETIMES redistribute wealth: by taking money and using it to build a justice system, a military, etc. Heck, a broad swathe of the TP favors the straight-up wealth redistribution that is SS.
Your claim about the TPers is an empirical claim, and the polls show it’s false. The TP is far right. Didn’t you wonder why popular politicians were far to the left of the TP candidates? Why TP candidates always had to backpedal after saying something popular with the TP?
I’m not sure there is an opposite to socialism. Anarcho-capitalism maybe? There may have been a time and a place where the right wing of politics represented the opposite of socialism, but in today’s US it doesn’t.
This is logic?
You wrote this:
“I would also like Frum Forum to use this technique when the right is accused of being of some such IST. Racist, or fascist. Go to a real racist and ask if Andrew Brietbart is a racist. When Mr avowed racist says, no, then I’m sure you will take his word…the word of an EXPERT.”
I gave an example of an avowed racist saying ‘yes’ when the TP was accused of being racist or having racist elements. That contradicts your implicit assumption that FF would get a ‘no’ answer. Contradictions cannot hold, ergo your implicit assumption must be mistaken.
Govt. programs don’t operate that way though, and the people in debt are the recipients of govt. aid not the donors to it.
Really?
If you’re going to claim something is socialism then you need an actual definition of socialism.
Yes, of course, and your definition seems to be, simply, government control of production. Period. OK then Obama is not a socialist, nor is Chavez for that matter. Chavez is not a socialist.
Neither is Bernie Sanders according to the Socialist interviewed here, even though Bernie would dispute that. So there are many definitions of Socialism, just like the definitions of Conservatism, which Frum Forum tries desperately to control from their own minuscule foothold in the political realm.
Tell me please, how would you define, politically, the need to borrow money, tax people who work hard and contribute and spend it on social programs for those who wont work? What do you call that? Is there a word for it or is it unspeakable?
I call it socialism. Call it something else if you wish, but call it SOMETHING. Then Ill be happy to use your word for the sake of basic communication, otherwise you are talking out yer a$$
“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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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?
@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.
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.
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. [...]