Socialists Protest Too Loudly: Obama is Not One of Us

March 15, 11:12 AMDC Republican ExaminerBill Dupray

Previous Next

15 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Republican Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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.