There has been a lot of labeling and name calling going on in Washington lately. Every time I turn on the television or radio someone, usually a Republican, is labeling a Democratic proposal with an ‘–ism’. “Socialism!” “Marxism!” “Fascism!” I’ve heard them all.
I have been guilty myself; guiltier than most actually, of labeling Democrats and their policies with a variety of –isms, trying desperately to point out how bad these policies are for our country. But it’s hard to find the appropriate –ism to describe what is actually going on with the Democrats, which in turn makes it easy for Democratic apologists like Keith Olberman to say “That is not fill in the –ism .” Followed by some snarky remark about how dumb Republicans are for not having access to a dictionary.
Unfortunately, Olberman’s various defenses of Republicans’ –ism charges are usually right. Most of the –isms being tossed around are misapplied. I’ve done it, and I spent five years of my life studying –isms in college. If anyone knows what they mean and how to apply them it should be me. This situation has inspired me to take a look at some misapplied –isms and see why they don’t generally fit our new Democratic rulers.
- Liberalism—the Latin root of liberal, liber, means free. Traditionally this has been applied to people who believe in free markets, free speech, and freedom to form a contract with another ‘free’ person. Liberalism in its true form describes Libertarians more than it does Democrats.
- Marxism and Communism—Karl Marx was the author of the Communist Manifesto. Marx thought that workers would eventually take over ‘the means of production’ from their capitalist bosses. Thus far, Democrats only support workers taking money from their bosses. They have never suggested workers actually take over the reins of production, which would require workers to do something other than complain about their pay and actually run the companies. Have you ever noticed that none of the UAW bosses suggest that they could run GM or Chrysler better than management? Of course not.
- Fascism—there really isn’t a settled definition of fascism. Usually people link it back to the 20th century governments of Italy, Germany or Spain. The problem with using fascism nowadays is that it is assumed that you are calling someone a Nazi, which obviously carries its own baggage. So even if you think that fascism is the result of government and corporations conspiring to devour the freedom and wealth of Americans by means of corruption and greed, which is how I define fascism, everyone else thinks Nazi, and it just isn’t very useful in communicating the proper message to the masses.
- Socialism—this seems to be the most popular, and occasionally most accurate, way to describe the Democrats we have today, but it doesn’t exactly apply. Socialism’s signature is the redistribution of wealth. And while supporting a system that taxes people with higher incomes more than everyone else can be a form of wealth redistribution, the vast majority of wealth isn’t measured in the form of income. It is measured in assets, or net worth. Not once has Obama suggested redistributing assets in order to help out the poor. That would mean turning the Kennedy Compound into a low-income housing project. That is what Castro did in Cuba, and that is real socialism.
So it appears that none of the traditional –isms really apply to Obama, which begs the question, what should Republicans call Obama’s agenda so that people will understand it? Can’t Republicans label what it is Obama is doing in a couple words?
I would argue that we can, but that it isn’t an –ism like we seem to be inclined to use. Obama and the Democrats’ agenda can be described in two words: Central Planning.
What is Central Planning?
Before we can fully understand CP we have to understand some basic principles of capitalism. Capitalism proposes that each and every consumer has a right to decide which products they want to buy and what price they are willing to pay for them. So when you walk into a supermarket and find something you like, if you feel the price is fair, you can buy it. If enough consumers make the same choice that you did, the company that makes that product will be a success and the supermarket will keep the product on the shelf. If not, the company ends up like General Motors.
Central Planning doesn’t operate like this. Central Planners believe that the majority of people are not capable of making decisions for themselves. They believe that people like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are FAR more equipped at determining what it is that you need than you are. In the old days the Central Planners would decide everything that was on the shelves, and if it wasn’t on the shelves, you didn’t need it, so you couldn’t buy it. That is why when I grew up in the 80’s there were no Levi’s in Russia. The Central Planners deeming them unnecessary.
The American Central Planners we have today are much craftier than their Soviet predecessors. When you walk into an Obama-mart, you can still in theory buy whatever you want, but if you wish to buy something the Central Planning committee (Congress) doesn’t think you need, you will have to pay extra taxes for the privilege of purchasing those items. Current examples of this are the cigarette taxes, carbon taxes, trans-fat taxes. There are any number of Democratic proposals that solidify their belief in Central Planning.
Due to the high prices imposed by the Central Planners, less people can afford the high-tax items and the companies who make them go out of business. The end result is the same as in the USSR. Commerce is determined by government and not by consumers.
So the next time someone claims Obama and Pelosi are practicing an –ism, feel free to correct them. Central Planning is now the dominant Democratic philosophy.
Comments