A very brave reporter from the (soon to be bankrupt) New York Times had the temerity to ask Obama if he is a Socialist. Obama "bristled" at the suggestion and stumbled and stammered so badly in his response, he had to call the reporter back later to deny the charge more forcefully.
It seems like Obama's paint is thinning in places and his Socialist underbelly might actually be becoming visible to regular Americans. So the left has decided to trot out folks, whom we'll call Socialism-Deniers, to tell us we cannot believe what we see with our own eyes.
Today's Socialism-Denier is the editor of Socialist Magazine. This is a good one for the left. After all, who better than an admitted Socialist to prove definitively that Obama is not one of them? In a piece in the Washington Post titled, "Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know," Billy Wharton talks about how the Obama-effect is making Socialism much more popular. Their party's rise to newfound prominence began when Republicans made the rather unremarkable observation that Obama is a Socialist.
Whom did we have to thank for this moment in the spotlight? Oddly enough, Republican politicians such as Mike Huckabee and John McCain had become our most effective promoters. During his campaign, the ever-desperate McCain, his hard-charging running mate Sarah Palin and even a plumber named Joe lined up to call Barack Obama a "socialist." Last month, Huckabee even exclaimed that, "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be dead, but the Union of American Socialist Republics is being born."
We appreciated the newfound attention.
Then Wharton goes on to tell us why Obama is not a Socialist.
The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal [heh - good one]. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.
What the hell is a neoliberal? As a voracious consumer of news and politics, I have never heard that term. After all, how can any liberal be firmly committed to free-market policies when the very definition of a liberal is that they are against free-market policies?
Wharton continues.
The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy.
The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.
Isn't all this just arguing about degrees of Socialism? An economy where banks are are not private companies, but are partially or wholly owned by the government, is Socialism. A government-run, non-free market health system is Socialist.
The Liberals are clearly terrified that the American people are starting to realize that Obama is a Socialist. That is why they trot out people like Wharton to try to peel off that label before it sticks permanently. The problem is that just as a tiger is a tiger, a Socialist is a Socialist. You can call a tiger a dog, but that doesn't change what it is. Obama is a Socialist, and the louder Obama's supporters try to shout their denials and vilify their opponents, you will know by the volume and the venom, that we are right.
Comments
It's not degrees of socialism. It's a question of whether liberal policies loosely reflect the tenets of the actual Socialist party or follow the party line.
To call someone "Socialist" means they're a member of the Socialist Party, not that they're part of a separate party with a few of the same views yet in a very different form.
In another form:
Socialist:Democrat::Republican:Libertarian
I have to disagree with you Dave. Party membership is an umbrella under which politicians subjectively place themselves. However, just because one claims to be a Democrat or a Liberal or a Socialist, doesn't make it so. There are Socialist Parties in Europe who advocate precisely the same policies as American Democrats. So either the American Democratic Party includes closet Socialists or the European Socialists includes closet Democrats. Either way, the fact that Obama doesn't call himself a Socialist, doesn't make him correct.
I am shocked by the author's ignorance. As a 'voracious' reader of news and politics, any literate person should realize that Wharton is referring to classical liberalism when he refers to 'neoliberal'. A classical liberal is a modern American conservative, in that a classical liberal believes in personal liberty and a 'liberal', or free, economy. Thus, a neoliberal is someone espousing those views today, in modern times.
The author is also painfully ignorant of what, exactly a socialist is. If 'socialism' means having a regulated banking system, then even most Republican senators and Congressmen are socialists.
Please try to read up on the issues you write about before you publish your work.
I only wish he was a socialist, because instead of using free market economics to turn this recession around, we would have impounded the lot of failed companies and turned them around BEFORE giving them billions of dollars.
As for being a 'voracious' political pundit, apparently not since the term 'neoliberalism' has been around for a LONG time and brings up 2.4 MILLION hits on a simple Google search. Way to do your research there.
As for degrees of socialism, what you are suggesting is that anything left of center is socialist. If you take this approach, then everything right of center can be taken as fascist. You really want to go down that road? Because I'm pretty sure I'd rather go down the sane one, you know, where we don't compare Bush to Hitler and Obama to Mussolini.
All in all, I honestly don't mind you calling him a socialist per se, because the only person you're hurting is your own party. The democrats know what they have, they are pretty darn united in their objectives and support. You will only serve to weaken the already weak links that the RNC is hanging onto. Trying to cast your opponent as the enemy is one thing, trying to cast them into a mold that clearly doesn't fit has, and will continue to make your party fracture until there is nothing left, and nobody will be there to pick up the pieces. I'd suggest changing tactics personally, something more along the lines of strengthening party ties before attacking the lead dog.
Woof.
With all of your fear-based name calling, I seriously question your education and your patriotism. Yes, I said patriotism. Get a clue.
You've never heard the term neo-liberal? Haha, you moron.
Seriously, you've never heard of the term neo-liberal?
If you've never heard the term "Neo-Liberal", then you havent been following the news at all. google it. its one of the most important political terms of the last 30 years. WAKE UP !!
That is the problem with Op-Ed and journalism. The line has blurred much too much.
There used to be a time when people reported things that they checked facts on.
Really, who knew that "the very definition of a liberal is that they are against free-market policies?" If that's true, then a lot of Democrats are not liberals (including Obama).
I really wonder who Republicans think they are scaring by calling Obama a Socialist. Is anyone under 60 years old really still afraid of Socialism? The Soviet Union collapsed twenty years ago! This is simply not a boogeyman that is going to frighten most voters. Most voters are going to look at how well Obama, as well as Republican representatives, govern during this crisis. And in relation to that, I will say this - I think there is actually one thing that the Socialist Party and the Republican Party have in common. They have both become captive to ideology, and have allowed that to interfere with actually being able to effectively govern a country as large and diverse as the United States
Gee. Looks like you got your arse handed to you before I got a chance.
Moron.
The right-wing, in attempt to scare people and red-bait, uses the term "socialist" to describe anyone not hysterically committed to nationalism and rich people staying rich. I think what most mean is that they think Obama is a "social democrat" when they say "socialist". Of course, Obama isn't a social democrat either, but knowing the difference would do so-called conservatives a lot of good in the credibility department.
If Obama is not Socialist, he is Fascist.
Heil Hussain!
Wow skip, you don't even know which side of the fence fascism lies on do you? Just pulling words out of your ass that sound intimidating? Maybe you'll throw in some racial slurs to spice up the pot?
By the way fascism is classically defined as an extreme right winger. Way to go moron you just said if he isn't an extreme lefty, he must be an extreme rightie, LOL!
Wow...what a hilarious redefinition of socialism and liberalism to appeal to the right-wing screech monkeys who helped give us Karl Rove and George W. Bush. The fact is that Obama is and never has been a socialist! If you understood the true definition of socialism, you would know that. Instead, you continue to prey on the fears of an ignorant populace. We've had 'McCarthyism', and it wasn't pretty. Obama is obviously a pragmatist, which is what we desperately need after so many years of ideological litmus tests.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!