RSS Feed MenuStanley 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.
msmilack // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Nice piece
anniemargret // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:16 pm
The 30 million Americans and their families that can stop worrying about them that will benefit from Obama’s healthcare reform will be thanking him for at least getting the ball moving forward. Left to Republicans healthcare reform would have remained in status quo for perpetuity.
I would like to see a Medicare-type universal healthcare plan for this country. It is shameful that a country that is as prosperous as ours cannot work out a manageable fair compassionate plan for every American in this country, instead of ignoring the millions of others who have already had to face foreclosure, bankruptcy or even death.
Because of the hissy fit that the Republicans have exhibited since Obama promised healthcare reform, I and millions of others who have family members in the above-described condition, will not be looking to the GOP for solutions. They haven’t any, nor do they give a whit.
After all, they still got some Republican seniors worrying themselves into a frenzy due to Palin’s egregious ‘death panel’ accusation. What a party.
WillyP // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:50 pm
ha,
Obama (and Bush, to be honest, as he did bail out the automakers) socialism really did bring us a $41k car electric car. Goes 40 miles on one charge! Go get ‘em Chevy! That’s the ticket!
As for feeling “out-crazied,” you libs make me feel that way all the time. You spend your time defending an indefensible, incompetent, and possibly criminal administration. I, on the other hand, spend my time telling you why you’re wrong on all counts – for your own good, really.
I’ll link again, because it might be edifying for one of you libs to click the link:
http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/MarxismUnmasked.pdf
Obama is a socialist, but don’t take my word for it. As Mises teaches about Engels (who might be said to know something of socialism):
“In 1888—40 years after the publication of the Communist Manifesto— a translation was made by an English writer. Engels added some comments to this translation. Referring to the ten interventionist measures advocated in the Manifesto, he said these measures were not only untenable, as the Manifesto claimed, but precisely because they were untenable, they would necessarily push further and further toward still more measures of this kind, until eventually these more advanced measures would lead to socialism.”
One failed intervention leading to another, until the whole free market system must be replaced by socialism. The argument is over; Eugene Debs loses.
Xclamation // Jul 29, 2010 at 10:21 pm
I wanted to stay out of this, but as Willy’s mentioned it at least twice now, I’d like to address one fallacy.
The Chevrolet Volt is in no way the creation of a socialist government, economy or fever dream.
The Volt was in development well before GM was temporarily bought by the government. In fact, it first debuted as a concept car in 2007, two years before GM declared bankruptcy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Volt#Design
And by the way, it goes 40 miles on one charge, without any gasoline. When you include the gas that the car burns for trips over 40 miles, the car is supposed to get somewhere in the area of 230 mpg.
WillyP // Jul 29, 2010 at 10:30 pm
actually xclamation, the car wouldn’t have been produced if GM had to go through the bankruptcy process. socialism made this laughable vehicle, this obama edsel, a reality.
no point in debating this. the first year’s sales number will prove it to a market failure, as nobody in their right mind would choose this over a well-equipped 3 series.
oh right, and let’s not forget a FEDERAL SUBSIDY of $7,500. can you say unfair competition?
real great job we’ve done with American cars. sad thing is, our companies would be top notch if it weren’t FOR the gov’t and their protected, vaunted unions!
balconesfault // Jul 29, 2010 at 11:17 pm
actually xclamation, the car wouldn’t have been produced if GM had to go through the bankruptcy process. socialism made this laughable vehicle, this obama edsel, a reality.
When dealerships have long waiting lists for the vehicles will you still be calling it an “edsel”?
We know that you don’t want one. But then again, a huge market share of the public doesn’t share your values or aestheics, do they?
oh right, and let’s not forget a FEDERAL SUBSIDY of $7,500. can you say unfair competition?
Why? The subsidy isn’t being directed for purchasers of the Volt. Purchasers of the Leaf and the Tesla fleet will get it as well. The subsidy is because the federal government sees a strategic value in beginning to wean our transportation fleet off of fossil fuels over the long haul, and this is a key step in seeding the technology. The Bush Administration signed a FEDERAL SUBSIDY for hybrid vehicles – was that SOCIALISM?
real great job we’ve done with American cars. sad thing is, our companies would be top notch if it weren’t FOR the gov’t and their protected, vaunted unions!
Our auto makers biggest problems have to do with constantly chasing sales of higher ticket bigger size vehicles via their production and marketing, and then getting whiplashed every time there’s a spike in oil prices and people go rushing for more fuel efficient vehicles.
Rabiner // Jul 29, 2010 at 11:46 pm
WillyP:
Why are you against a Federal Subsidy for electric vehicles but say nothing of the tax code which allows companies to write off capital due to depreciation? How about all the other tax benefits for doing one thing or another that you seem to be totally against? I have no problems with corporations being given incentives to invest in new technologies and to speed the innovation process. Apparently that falls into ’socialism’ to you though.
mickster99 // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:15 am
Hey everybody. Don’t you get it? Obama is really an anarchist. He wants to destroy all forms of government. Isn’t this what Alinsky and the Weather Underground trained him to be. He has cleverly cloaked himself in the role of Socialist merely as a distraction when what he ultimately wants to achieve is total anarchy. Why we don’t see this is that he has cleverly co-opted the media into believing he is merely a Nazi Communist Socialist. Merely to distract us from this true goals. Please America wake up before it’s too late. I only hope that Glenn Beck realizes this. He is our only hope. Ok, maybe Frum can help too.
mickster99 // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:51 am
WillyP.
I just read your post. Thank goodness you’ve at least gotten the first lie. But read my post. There is more to the insidious evil going on within our vary government. Obama is more than than just a socialist. More than just a Nazi Communist. He is an anarchist. Please help me fight this. Glenn Beck must be told the real truth about Obama. Socialsim is merely a cover for what he really is. Help save American, the Republic, before it’s too late.
CentristNYer // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:22 am
WillyP // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:50 pm
“I, on the other hand, spend my time telling you why you’re wrong on all counts – for your own good, really.”
Gee, WillyP — sounds like you’re a socialist.
Xclamation // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:32 am
WillyP, a rebuttal to your, “the car wouldn’t have been produced if GM had to go through the bankruptcy process” comment.
In fact, GM did go through the bankruptcy process (a quick Google search will confirm this. I searched using the terms “GM bankruptcy 2009″. Google returned about 1,790,000 results. If even one half of one percent of those are relevant to the discussion, that’s still almost 90,000 pages of proof). “Bankruptcy” does not equal “going out of business” – this is a distinction that becomes important in my second point.
And when you think of it, that whole Chapter 11 thing is kind of socialist. I mean, why does some pushy government bureaucrat get to say which assets I get to keep and which I have to sell just because I can’t pay my bills? Why can’t I just slink off in the middle of the night and start over fresh in one of the other 49 states in this great country by purchasing a new driver’s license, birth certificate and social security card from an unregulated guy who’s set up shop out of a suitcase on a street corner?
Also, I’m sorry to say, but I think it’s more than just a little bit of a stretch to try and somehow tie the Chevy Volt to socialism, or the government at all really. Again, the car was in production for more than two years before the government bought a majority share of the company. And even if the Treasury hadn’t bought up GM’s stock, someone else would have (because remember, the company wasn’t going out of business, it was just admitting that it couldn’t cover its obligations) and the Volt still (most likely) would have been released.
One last quick thing, why is it that anytime the government tries to do anything (such offering to subsidize fuel-efficient cars, or SUVs for that matter) people start crying about how unfair it is? I wasn’t aware that in offering incentives the government was simultaneously forcing the citizenry to abandon all rational thought and culpability in favor of doing what their democratically elected overlords tell them to. Really, what’s the practical difference between the government offering incentives and a private company slashing the price of a commodity to help it sell?
WillyP // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:52 am
In case it is not clear, in my hundreds of posts, I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENT DIRECTION OF INDUSTRY. You bizarre “liberal” statists hate private industry and love government. The only explanation I can proffer is psychological in nature – you believe government to hold the same ideals you hold. It’s as if you’ve never heard of a lying politician.
I believe government should be reserved to the core functions that make society stable, that enable a free market to flourish. The highest priority should be security of our natural rights, including freedom of speech, worship, and the protection of private property. If you want to throw in a few very, very early stage R&D projects – NASA, advanced energy development, fundamental physics – then fine. Let them have that too, if it’ll keep them away from everything else.
The institution of government is not mystical, not wiser, not any more accountable than private corporations. Matter of fact it is often shrouded in secrecy, deception, and corruption. Sure, there was Enron and there was Worldcom, but these PALE in comparison to the damage wrought by the Federal Reserve System and its completely legal inflationary practices.
Honestly, even if you think government was good at creating worthwhile and quality products, where is the age old wisdom that government can just as easily be turned against the people? This was theme #1 of the American Revolution. The events of the 20th century should have served as a wake-up call for those who earnestly believe in the cause benevolent government. The Russian Revolution WAS a popular revolution. So was the ascension of the Nazis.
How quickly the Russians and Germans learned that a government that provides you with everything holds the right to deny you what you need to live.
And may I add: Democracy only works with a written constitution that expressly limits government involvement in public affairs. The Greeks, practitioners themselves, gave Democracy a bad name for centuries following the mob/majoritarian rule if the Athenians, who, while at war with Sparta, authorized genocide after genocide. The will of the majority is not to be celebrated qua the will of the majority. The Constitution of the United States wasn’t arbitrary; it represented the best, if compromised, statement on the proper scope of government power.
I, for one, would rather be ruled by a King than a vindictive and uneducated mob.
WillyP // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:56 am
xclamation,
“Really, what’s the practical difference between the government offering incentives and a private company slashing the price of a commodity to help it sell?”
It’s the difference between a free market and a command economy. I would recommend starting here:
http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf
Do you work for Chevy or something?
sinz54 // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:52 am
Xclamation: Also, I’m sorry to say, but I think it’s more than just a little bit of a stretch to try and somehow tie the Chevy Volt to socialism, or the government at all really.
Think so?
Look at all the Government subsidies and favors going into this lemon, without which it wouldn’t exist at all:
http://i27.tinypic.com/28sbsxj.jpg
G.M.’s vision turned into a car that costs $41,000 before relevant tax breaks … but after billions of dollars of government loans and grants for the Volt’s development and production. And instead of the sleek coupe of 2007, it looks suspiciously similar to a Toyota Prius. It also requires premium gasoline, seats only four people (the battery runs down the center of the car, preventing a rear bench) and has less head and leg room than the $17,000 Chevrolet Cruze, which is more or less the non-electric version of the Volt….
G.M. decided to make the Volt more affordable by offering a $350-a-month lease over 36 months. But that offer allows only 12,000 miles per year, or about 33 miles per day. Assuming you charged your Volt every evening, giving you 40 miles of battery power, and wanted to keep below the mileage limit, you would rarely use its expensive range-extending gas engine. No wonder the Volt’s main competition, the Nissan Leaf, forgoes the additional combustion engine — and ends up costing $8,000 less as a result.
In the industry, some suspect that G.M. and the Obama administration decided against selling the Volt at a loss because they want the company to appear profitable before its long-awaited initial stock offering, which is likely to take place next month. For taxpayers, that approach might have made sense if the government planned on selling its entire 61 percent stake in G.M. But the administration has said it will sell only enough equity in the public offering to relinquish its controlling stake in G.M. Thus the government will remain exposed to the company’s (and the Volt’s) long-term fate.
So the future of General Motors (and the $50 billion taxpayer investment in it) now depends on a vehicle that costs $41,000 but offers the performance and interior space of a $15,000 economy car.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html?ref=opinion
sinz54 // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:58 am
In the final analysis, all that counts is whether Obama’s policies are really making life better for American households.
This past week, quietly and without much publicity, Obama released his Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 Mid-Session Review.
And on page 9, you find a flat prediction that the unemployment rate won’t drop below 6% till the year 2015.
That wouldn’t be fatal, as long as there were other visible signs that the economy was humming, like a soaring stock market. (That would make all Americans with IRA and 401(k) plans feel richer.)
But that hasn’t happened either.
Nor have housing starts recovered.
Indeed, all the “progress” that is cited by such Obama fans as “anniemargaret” concerns GOVERNMENT programs and GOVERNMENT favors and GOVERNMENT subsidies and GOVERNMENT bailouts.
The private sector–that part of it that doesn’t depend on Government bailouts–continues to do poorly.
easton // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:58 am
wow WillyP, did you ever once conceive that history has shown you to be utterly wrong? Look at all the civilizations that had very little government and those that had strong government. If you really want to live in a society that has no government, move to Somalia. You have fools who believe in ideology irrespective of facts and normal people who think if government can do something better then let it, if not, then don’t. Every other OECD nation has far more government intervention in health care than the US, pays far less, and has better outcomes, yet you choose to believe in this infantile “gummint bad, no gummint good” and seem to believe that if you repeat it enough times you will convince anyone else. The fact that you wrote down such a tedious “This I believe” shows truly how out of touch you are. No one cares unless you are prepared to back up your belief with facts instead of “I believe this, so it must be true” garbage. Try thinking for yourself instead of just regurgitating far right ideology.
jjv // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:06 am
balconesfault-If the transaction is completely within the state I don’t think federal power extends to it. Same for OSHA. I also think the state can set higher standards to soley intrastate transactions regardless of what the Federal government wants.
easton // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:10 am
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? GM now sells more cars in China than the US, have you ever considered how beneficial this is to America instead of stating, let GM die and we can pretend that America doesn’t need to make anything, we can all be hedge fund managers.
And you analysis of the economy is laughable in the extreme. The Bush administration nearly burned the economy down and you are angry the country hasn’t been repaired in 2 years. I take it you are older than 2 and remember how close we were to the brink. Lehman brothers bankrupt, the economy is total freefall, banking frozen, jobs lost at 600,000 a month (and this after virtually no job growth under Bush), an 800 billion dollar bank bailout.
The stock market plunged to around 6,000 and if not for bank stabilization would have been down who knows how far, now the market is over 10,000. And you are stating that is not recovery?
The Bush administration went on a home building spree, which created the financial crisis, and you are angry that the housing collapse is not played out in a short time? Do you even know there was a housing bubble? As to Unemployment, since it will take a few years for the housing market to turn around only an idiot would think a depression in this segment would not have ripple effects. But when it does the economy will begin to boom again based on simple demographics (provided Republican fools are kept away from the economy)
JonF // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:28 am
the US governmment has been intervening in the US economy for time immemorial. The Grant administration bailed out banks after the Paic of 1873. The Washington administration established a national bank. Were all presidents socialists?
Instead of debating what insults we can pin on politicians we don’t like maybe we could be debating what policies we think best for the country.
WillyP // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:35 am
LOL! I am out of touch?! Ask 10 people on the street if they’ve experience a recovery. Ask those same 10 people how they view the President and Congress. And then ask them who they’ll be voting for in November.
Out of touch is defending a recovery than AIN’T HAPPENING! Dolts, all damn dolts.
WillyP // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:43 am
easton,
did it ever occur to you that just maybe strong governments are only able to come into existence after a strong culture creates a strong economy for that government to prey off of?
or is it that the institution with a monopoly on the legal use of force is always responsible for peaceful trade and development?
what political theorists do you like to read? who do you find to be an insightful political scientist, social critic, economist, journalist, or historian? the nation magazine? the new york times?
Xclamation // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:50 am
WillyP, I’m sorry if I seem preoccupied with the Volt. I promise I don’t work for GM, or any aspect of the auto industry. Really!
I only keep returning to the issue because I’m trying to gauge where you’re coming from when you say things like, “[I]f GM had to go through… bankruptcy” or make charges such as, “[S]ocialism really did bring us a $41k… electric car.” And now I think I know. I could be wrong about you, but I’m getting the impression that you’re a person who (at least when it comes to the relationship between government and business) doesn’t see any middle-ground and you don’t believe in compromise. That’s fine, everyone’s entitled to draw the line where they see fit. But I personally tend not to take the advice or assertions of people who can’t see their way to a bit of moderation. But that’s just me.
Sinz54, you’re right and I stand corrected; GM did avail itself of a bucket-load of public funds to help realize its plans.
franco 2 // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:53 am
Lets note for the record that when it comes to words like SOCIALISM, lefties harken back to the end results of the ideology, compare it to the USA today, and guffaw. They won t address the fact that we are moving in the DIRECTION of socialism and that one day (soon perhaps) there will be a tipping point where the government is so big and dependent on production that is TOO BIG TO FAIL and so they RESCUE said industries. This is basically the plan, and it is being implemented. Alinsky focused on the incremental approach and co~opting values… a stealth operation. Obama and other Democrats (Hillary for another) are admitted FANS of Alinsky.
franco 2 // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:57 am
Id like to use the same argument that leftist use about the word SOCIALISM and apply it to the word RACISM.
First you have to define it in its most stark terms. Then you claim that it doesn’t exist because no longer are blacks being hung from trees and no institutional discrimination takes place. Therefore there is no racism in America.
WillyP // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:07 am
xclamation,
I believe in compromise when compromise is a) practical b) beneficial.
Since there is literally nothing to be gained through “government and business working together” I do not support any compromise. Most Liberals (not libs) are abhorred by the assertion that government should be in bed with business and vice-versa.
As government does not produce anything but security – i.e., protecting rights – its economic means are redistribution. Is there some role for a low-bar safety net for those who have no access to private charity? Perhaps? Are we VERY FAR away from this, and does government now do full service health insurance? Yes. And it’s a disaster, bankrupt, corrupt, and hated by physicians.
Come to think of it, when it comes to many business – banking, for example – libs think that government should not be acting so friendly to business. I am consistent; I do not support special privilege for any business.
I am a conservative who believes in very limited government. Forays into the market should come, if at all, on the state level. This is why we have Federalism – experimentation. Libs like a strong, all-encompassing central government. Sorry, no dice for me. They need to grow up and stop worshiping the State.