Stanley Kurtz has decided that Barack Obama is a socialist — a case he makes in his forthcoming book: Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. But what does socialism mean? Many Europeans call themselves socialist, but mean only that they support the mixed economies which every advanced country has, including the United States. Sweden, often thought of as either a socialist utopia or nightmare, depending upon your perspective, actually has a robust private economy — indeed, almost all production is in the hands of privately held companies, just like in the United States. Taxes are much higher than in our country — certainly on the wealthy — and are used to fund a far greater array of public goods and services. But that is only a difference of degree, not kind, from the policies of every developed country from Canada to Australia, and including all of Western Europe. Indeed, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and even Mitt Romney might be said to be socialist by this standard because they support government augmented programs to provide universal health insurance. And what about George W. Bush? After all, it was Bush who signed into law the Medicare Part D bill, the largest extension of the welfare state in American history. And Medicare is, in fact, a single payer system for the elderly.
Kurtz has decided that Obama is a socialist because, according to Kurtz, Obama favors a secret, incremental path to full nationalization of the economy. This is a difficult argument for Kurtz to sustain, because nothing Obama has ever written or proposed as a politician supports the allegation. Instead, in a recent post on National Review Online, Kurtz fastens on Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson as a kind of ideological doppelganger for Obama. Kurtz notes that, in his most recent column, Meyerson proposes various policies that are pretty much standard parts of the Democratic party program–including, wait for it… criticism of big business. As a clinching detail, Kurtz observes that Meyerson (we’ve lost Obama altogether in this analysis, but, no matter, Kurtz seems to think that Meyerson and Obama are co-conspirators) is the vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.
According to Kurtz, “Meyerson’s support for these Democratic initiatives could be taken as a sign that some socialists agree with conservatives. That is, sophisticated socialists and conservatives alike believe that America can be pushed into socialism by degrees. Actual existing American socialists (of the sophisticated “non-sectarian” variety typified by the DSA) don’t go around demanding full nationalization of the economy at a blow. On the contrary, they offer support to those Democratic Party initiatives most likely to bring about a socialist transformation in the long term.”
Yes, that’s sounds brilliantly plausible–why would these DSA types actually announce their nefarious intentions? But the key words from Kurtz’s remarks above are these: “could be taken….” Those three words do a lot of work in Kurtz’s analysis. Yes, it “could be taken” that mainstream liberals and Democrats like Meyerson and Obama are biding their time, waiting for the moment when, over the outraged protests of Congress, the Courts, the media, and the American people they impose a massive nationalization of the American economy (I guess Kurtz thinks this will happen by executive order — or maybe he thinks that Congress, etc. will go along with the nationalization — in which case it would be a catastrophe, but a fully democratically enacted catastrophe. He doesn’t say). And it also “could be taken” that Barack Obama is a giraffe if he had four legs, was very very tall, and covered with spots. But Obama doesn’t have any of those characteristics, so he’s not a giraffe. Similarly, Obama, Meyerson, and American liberals at large “could be taken” to fervently believe in the insane and disastrous fantasy that the United States should have a fully nationalized economy. But they don’t — and Kurtz would be hard pressed to find 1,000 Americans (and no influential ones at any level of society) who believe this nuttery — not now, and not in the avowedly to be hoped for future. Kurtz claims that “sophisticated” socialists “don’t go around demanding full nationalization of the economy at a blow….” But if nobody ever makes such a proposal, how can Kurtz prove his point?
What Kurtz doesn’t explain to his readers — perhaps because he doesn’t know himself — is that the DSA is not only without any influence whatsoever, a letterhead masquerading as an organization, but was also created out of a merger between a group called the New American Movement, composed of advocates of early New Left decentralization and “participatory democracy” (the exact opposite of nationalization tout court), and Michael Harrington’s group, the Democratic Socialists Organizing Committee. Harrington, a friend of Bill Buckley’s and his foil in numerous televised debates, was a basic Social Democrat of the kind that frequently run the governments of almost every Western European country (I know, I know—“it could be taken” that these European social democrats want to fully nationalize their economies too). Harrington spent his life fighting Stalinism and the Soviet Union generally, both because it was a moral monstrosity, and because of its absurd, dysfunctional economic model. DSA, whatever it may be, is as opposed to full nationalization of the economy as much as Stanley Kurtz is.
Meyerson’s politics, similar to Harrington’s but with a particular interest in the support of the labor movement, have nothing to do with the fantasy that Kurtz has imputed to him, and if you don’t believe me, you can review his voluminous writings for yourself. If you’re a conservative, what you will find is the kind of political and economic program you will oppose, but nothing that remotely has anything to do with “the full nationalization of the economy.” Needless to say, Obama — somebody who has published a good deal for a politician and with his own pen — has never advocated such a program either. Or one can examine his time in the Illinois and U.S. Senate to investigate whether he ever proposed the nationalization of the American economy.
There’s a good essay to be written about the almost demented anxiety, verging on paranoia, that a mainstream American liberal named Barack Obama has evoked among American conservatives. Stanley Kurtz seems to be in a good position to write that essay — beginning perhaps with a long conversation with the face he sees in the mirror every morning.
balconesfault // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:08 am
Willy: The highest priority should be security of our natural rights, including freedom of speech, worship, and the protection of private property.
How is there a natural right of private property? Particularly with respect to real estate?
All real estate ownership rights are created by the government. The only “natural” right to real estate ownership is what you can defend with your gun.
Heh … Franco brings up Alinsky. Can ACORN be far behind?
CentristNYer // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:11 am
easton: “sinz, good lord, the Volt is a new technology, but inevitably the price will go down, the question is do you want it to belong to the Chinese, Japanese, Germans, or the US to have a stake in the future?”
Thank you, easton, for making this point. These idiots are so blinded by their loathing of anything the government touches that they’re unwilling to concede that federal support for new technologies actually makes us stronger. (But, of course, that undercuts their moronic “Obama is a socialist” narrative.)
Why does WillyP hate America?
WillyP // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:22 am
Centrist,
Fine, you can take up the definition I provided byway of Engels, who apparently agrees with me.
Obama IS a socialist. The argument was over long ago. His entire life suggests it.
If all of my closest friends, associates, and colleagues were racists, and when running for office I suddenly claimed ignorance of their beliefs and activities, you’d call me a flagrant liar. Yet this is exactly what Obama did when it came to his Chicago cadre of neo-Socialist Marxists.
Truth means nothing to you liberals. You worship a personality. The same frighteningly close-minded mentality of Cult members.
And if I hated America, I wouldn’t have faith enough to know that, unlike you hardcore EXTREMIST liberals, the VAST, VAST majority of Americans are going to throw these Dem bums out of office in 2010 and 2012.
easton // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:38 am
“I am a conservative who believes in very limited government. Forays into the market should come, if at all, on the state level” laughably absurd. So big big government is bad, but big small government is OK provided we call it state. never mind that we have many states that have bigger economies than some countries. It is this idiotic notion that “gummint bad” which has no basis in reality.
WillyP is agin it because he is agin it. Dude, government is the foundation of civilization. If you were in a ship wreck deserted on an island, for the survivors to continue to live they would first have to organize a system of governance and division of responsibilities. WillyP, of course, would be dead in a week since he is so agin Gummint. If Government is so essential at such a primitive level, how dumb can you be to believe it is not necessary in such an incredibly complex society in which we live?
And no one “worships” the state here. Do you even know English? Do you really think this is Imperial Japan where the Emperor is a God? Oh wait, for people like you Ayn Rand is a god.
CentristNYer // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:38 am
Hey, Willy. Better have your doctor double your meds. I can feel the spittle all the way here in New York.
WillyP // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:45 am
easton,
Unraveling your tragic and embarrassingly unsophisticated view of human history, the nature of human economic activity, and the foundations of civilization require more time than I have. I refer you here:
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669
It’s a good place to start.
Centrist,
I was born in NY, and currently live and work in, NYC.
Fairy Hardcastle // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:48 am
If I understand WillyP correctly, he would remove special credits for various “encouraged” economic activities in favor of (i) an overall lower tax burden and (ii) letting the market and American entrepreneural spirit rock the economy. The auto bailout as a case in point: under laissez-faire market approach, GM and Chrysler would probably have tanked but why not private concerns picking up parts of the operations and starting new companies? Ford survived and is the strongest automaker around now.
I think this is probably the purest expression of limited government you can have, but you can look at the tax code and see how far we are from that.
WillyP // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:54 am
fairy,
yes, that’s basically it.
but on a more profound level, it’s because i acknowledge the a profitable (i.e., beneficial) business can only be established through the process of profit/loss as provided by financial accounting.
the government, rejecting basic accounting signals, papering over losses, and inflating to cover deficits, essentially rejects the very tool that enables the extended order: namely, money. in doing so, they reject the yardstick by which to weigh opportunity cost. they are blind to the true costs of their interferences, and their actions inevitably end up causing more harm than good. they get stuck playing a game of economic whack-a-mole.
so yes, i reject government interference with industry. but i do not do so because i blindly “hate” government. i do because i understand why/how business and commerce have emerged to created a complex network consisting of the division of labor and full utilization of material resources, maximizing human material desires.
only a true ascetic would advocate socialism. like, let’s say, the “greens”…
balconesfault // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Fairy: (i) an overall lower tax burden and (ii) letting the market and American entrepreneural spirit rock the economy
Since a significant reduction in tax burden and gutting of the regulatory state during the 2000’s worked so well to “rock the economy”, why not go all the way?
LFC // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Balcone, some people just can’t grasp the difference between “rock the economy” and ““drive the economy up on the rocks.”
Fairy Hardcastle // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:48 pm
balconesfault,
The financial downturn was not due to underregulation — it was due to lack of enforcement of existing regulations. Does Madoff ring a bell? How about our erstwhile SEC porn surfers? In the final analysis, it was not a lack of rules, it was a lack of character, starting with B. Frank and his bosom buddy, to some entrepreneurs fixated on the profit and not the cost, down to the mortgage broker selling the subprime and negative amortization loans, to the imprudent homebuyers.
It was a lack of proper upbringing, which means a lack of proper parenting.
balconesfault // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Fairy: The financial downturn was not due to underregulation — it was due to lack of enforcement of existing regulations.
Partially correct, but not completely. But for the sake of argument I will grant it … lack of enforcement of existing regulations during the Bush era was in large part a form of “Executive Branch Nullification” of regulations that were passed by Congress and signed by previous Presidents.
Obviously, the Bush Administration could not have stricken decades of financial, environmental, and worker protection laws off the books in a very short time (although there are, as we see here, many in the party who would favor doing just that). But they could hire political appointees throughout the bureaucracy who were vetted by the Heritage Foundation, and dedicated to the principle articulated by David Koch in his interview referenced here the other day – that regulations are a “destructive force”.
You load a bureaucracy with that attitude at the top, and it will quit. Sure, when they come to realize that any enforcement action they prepare will end up collecting dust on a shelf, some people will do the right thing and find other jobs, others do the cynical thing and porn surf. But the reality was that their bosses weren’t going to let them do their jobs.
Give me a Republican Party like we had 40 years ago – which believed in a strong regulatory community, albeit not an omnipotent and omnipresent one – and there is some headway to be made. But when you have a Republican Party whose rhetoric is “Government is Bad” then they are going to run bad governments.
Fairy Hardcastle // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Balconesfault,
Certainly each Administration has its agenda and perhaps favors some areas of enforcement over others. The present Administration is apparently devising a mechanism to get around immigration laws and effectively “de-regulate” portions of that area. Your point is interesting. Do you have any other sources that support your view that SEC supervisors were simply shelving certain enforcement projects?
Not being old enough, I really don’t know what it was like 40 years ago to comment on whether those were the halcyon days of the GOP.
Wallrat // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:26 pm
@ Fairy … how do you characterize the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which repealed Glass–Steagall?
John Q // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm
“There’s a good essay to be written about the almost demented anxiety, verging on paranoia, that a mainstream American liberal named Barack Obama has evoked among American conservatives.”
Actually, there’s enough material for a whole book, and it has been written:
OVER THE CLIFF by John Amato and David Neiwert.
http://www.amazon.com/Over-Cliff-Obamas-Election-American/dp/0982417179/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280516452&sr=8-1#reader_0982417179
From the Amazon product description:
“(The authors) examine the torrent of right-wing kookery—the eager willingness of conservatives to fervently believe things that are provably false—and its ramifications both for our national discourse and our national well-being. The authors show how this outlandish, overheated rhetoric—generated by mainstream-media figures like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs—is accompanied by a wave of lethal right-wing violence and threatening behavior.
The book explores the main drivers of this descent into madness: the extremist Radical Right and the longtime Republican willingness—dating back to Nixon, but refined in more recent years by Lee Atwater and his acolytes—to engage in a divisive politics of resentment, both racial and cultural. ”
(Snopes.com lists literally hundreds of false rumors that have been spread about Obama.)
John Q // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:35 pm
“Give me a Republican Party like we had 40 years ago – which believed in a strong regulatory community, albeit not an omnipotent and omnipresent one – and there is some headway to be made. But when you have a Republican Party whose rhetoric is “Government is Bad” then they are going to run bad governments.”
You’ll find it really instructive to go back to the Republican Party platform of 1956 to see just how far the party has fallen.
balconesfault // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:34 pm
1956 Republican Platform, eh?
Well, there’s an awful lot of reasons to consider the Tea Party a modern offshoot of the John Birch Society.
And the John Birch Society did accuse President Eisenhower of being a communist sympathizer, and possibly even a Soviet agent.
busboy33 // Jul 31, 2010 at 3:30 am
@WillyP:
“Obama IS a socialist. The argument was over long ago. His entire life SUGGESTS it.”
Sorry about adding that second emphasis, I just couldn’t resist with something this silly.
Suggestions are proof beyond dispute now?
Promotional Travel Mugs » Anyone know a good place to get novelty coffe mugs in LA? // Jul 31, 2010 at 4:47 am
[...] What Kind of a Socialist is Barack Obama? No Kind | FrumForum [...]
MaidMarion // Jul 31, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Eugene Victor,
Why do you post your opinions under the secrecy and protection of a pseudonym? Before even reading the first word of the first paragraph of your “rebuttal” to Stanley Kurtz, it’s clear by your unwillingness to identify yourself that no personal conviction or personal courage underlies any attempted points you might try to make against Kurtz.
Stop hiding Eugene.
HoldenLitgo // Aug 3, 2010 at 10:50 pm
WillyP-
“You worship a personality. The same frighteningly close-minded mentality of Cult members.”
One word for you:
Reagan.
In fact, you con jobs have been looking in vain for him ever since he drifted into dementia and died. While still in office. You’ll never find him, for he never really was.
kmj08c // Aug 6, 2010 at 12:15 am
I love how such benign and completely powerless organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America get inflated into powerful shadowy enemies.
Oh, and WillyP, this thing about “his whole life suggests it” – this is complete nonsense. If you’re going to throw out crap like that, you need to be able to back up your arguments and so far you haven’t been able to. Not to mention that you’re essentially parroting Glenn Beck’s view to the letter and he’s not exactly a paragon of veracity.