Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLike, Socialism
Sometimes, when a political campaign has run out of ideas and senses that the prize is slipping through its fingers, it rolls up a sleeve and plunges an arm, shoulder deep, right down to the bottom of the barrel. The problem for John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican Party is that the bottom was scraped clean long before it dropped out. Back when the polls were nip and tuck and the leaves had not yet begun to turn, Barack Obama had already been accused of betraying the troops, wanting to teach kindergartners all about sex, favoring infanticide, and being a friend of terrorists and terrorism. What was left? The anticlimactic answer came as the long Presidential march of 2008 staggered toward its final week: Senator Obama is a socialist.
"This campaign in the next couple of weeks is about one thing," Todd Akin, a Republican congressman from Missouri, told a McCain rally outside St. Louis. "It's a referendum on socialism." "With all due respect," Senator George Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, said, "the man is a socialist." At an airport rally in Roswell, New Mexico, a well-known landing spot for space aliens, Governor Palin warned against Obama's tax proposals. "Friends," she said, "now is no time to experiment with socialism." And McCain, discussing those proposals, agreed that they sounded "a lot like socialism." There hasn't been so much talk of socialism in an American election since 1920, when Eugene Victor Debs, candidate of the Socialist Party, made his fifth run for President from a cell in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, where he was serving a ten-year sentence for opposing the First World War. (Debs got a million votes and was freed the following year by the new Republican President, Warren G. Harding, who immediately invited him to the White House for a friendly visit.)
As a buzzword, "socialism" had mostly good connotations in most of the world for most of the twentieth century. That's why the Nazis called themselves national socialists. That's why the Bolsheviks called their regime the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, obliging the socialist and social democratic parties of Europe (and America, for what it was worth) to make rescuing the "good name" of socialism one of their central missions. Socialists—one thinks of men like George Orwell, Willy Brandt, and Aneurin Bevan—were among Communism's most passionate and effective enemies.
The United States is a special case. There is a whole shelf of books on the question of why socialism never became a real mass movement here. For decades, the word served mainly as a cudgel with which conservative Republicans beat liberal Democrats about the head. When Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan accused John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson of socialism for advocating guaranteed health care for the aged and the poor, the implication was that Medicare and Medicaid would presage a Soviet America. Now that Communism has been defunct for nearly twenty years, though, the cry of socialism no longer packs its old punch. "At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives," McCain said the other day—thereby suggesting that the dystopia he abhors is not some North Korean-style totalitarian ant heap but, rather, the gentle social democracies across the Atlantic, where, in return for higher taxes and without any diminution of civil liberty, people buy themselves excellent public education, anxiety-free health care, and decent public transportation.
The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent. The latter is what it would be under Obama's proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bush's tax cuts expire on schedule. Obama would use some of the added revenue to give a break to pretty much everybody who nets less than a quarter of a million dollars a year. The total tax burden on the private economy would be somewhat lighter than it is now—a bit of elementary Keynesianism that renders doubly untrue the Republican claim that Obama "will raise your taxes."
On October 12th, in conversation with a voter forever to be known as Joe the Plumber, Obama gave one of his fullest summaries of his tax plan. After explaining how Joe could benefit from it, whether or not he achieves his dream of owning his own plumbing business, Obama added casually, "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." McCain and Palin have been quoting this remark ever since, offering it as prima-facie evidence of Obama's unsuitability for office. Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC's "Hardball," a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be "penalized" by being "in a huge tax bracket." McCain replied that "wealthy people can afford more" and that "the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do." The exchange continued:
YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama "Barack the Wealth Spreader," seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government's activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year's check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that "we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it ("collectively," no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.
98 Comments so far
Show AllThe thing that has impressed me the most about Obama lately is that he is not stooping to the level of the Regressive party. He could easily counter these untrue attacks from McNasty and Caribou Barbie, but he doesn't. Articles like this show the hypocrisy of the supposed "mavericks" (McCain air quotes inserted)
Would that Obama were a socialist. Alas, he's about as socialist as a Milton Friedman acolyte.
-TIA
skidog
Capitalism= Democracy + Private Ownership
Socialism= Democracy + Public Ownership
Communism= Dictatorship + PUBLIC Ownership
Fascism= Dictatorship + Private Ownership
When the desperate REGRESSIVE Right spout off about SOCIALISM,I retort that the STATUS Quo is manifestly FASCIST.AT least with SOCIALISM we would have a DEMOCRACY.Like perhaps Venezula.
A mix between Cap.&Soc. is obviously the ANSWER.
Who would Jesus vote for?!
Republican checklist:
Did they emphasize Obama racial stereotypes? Check: A big slice of watermelon and a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken on the Obama Bucks leaflet from Orange County Republican Women, also the Aunt Jemima takeoff featuring a baggy-lipped Obama caricature on the Obama Waffles box.
Did they confuse Obama's name with Osama? As many times as possible.
Did they confuse Obama's name with Saddam Hussein? More times than can be counted.
Did they call Obama a Muslim or an Arab? The Muslim assertion was right there on the Obama Waffles box. The crowd booed when McCain indicated that Obama might not be an Arab.
Did they confuse Obama with famous socialists like Vladimir Lenin, Mao and Khruschev? Check. Standard stump speech fodder.
How about with Adolph Hitler? With the Antichrist? Not yet, but they still have a week.
bornfreemen - Good post. Mostly I agree.
But I don't agree that Americans are anywhere near "awake."
Maybe just less asleep or moving toward a degree of wakefulness.
What radydelcamino notes above [about his nephew's belief that "...the US is fighting the communists in Iraq,"] typifies a level of hypnosis and ignorance that's still common among scores of millions of Americans -- and most of them are much older than teenagers.
The fact that ill-defined, meaningless buzzwords like 'socialism' or 'communism' can still scare so much of the electorate, says to me that Americans still have a lot of waking to do.
McClone will definitely get a lot more votes as a result of this eleventh hour "socialist" binge. Many voters are still in a cold war mindset and respond well to such ranting.
Earlier this year I was discussing the Iraq War with my 17 year old nephew who was raised and is going to college in the South. He told me that the US is fighting the communists in Iraq.
Truth be told,
The Republican party has been exposed as greedy, corporate but kissing , fear mongering, new world order , elitist , unpatriotic , lying sacks of shit.
They can say anything they want, call Obama anything they want, it does not matter, most Americans don't care what Republicans think or say.We are awake!!!
The Democrats have not done much better. These complacent nincompoops have sold them selves to the Republicans as willing whores for the last 30 years.
Why? Because if you can not have true power , you can make a few bucks if you are willing to bend over.
While both party's play their games , the American public has lost buying power, high paying jobs, constitutional rights and health care benefits.
We have gained , two high cost wars, a powerful military industrial complex , right wing religious whack jobs as key players in our government, 10 trillion dollar government debt, 48 trillion dollar total national debt.
Thank you papa Ronald Reagan.The founding Father who took us to the Dark side of 30 years of an unregulated greedy capitalistic money grab.
"Wealth spreading" ??? I can only hope that the Republican party be so collectively stupid as run Sarah Palin for president .That religious witch couldn't put a spell on anybody but the brainwashed walking dead of the Republican party.
Hey , I am not voting for Jesus, he is dead, get these bible hugging freaks out of our government.
Remember , separation of church and state. There is a really good reason for those laws. Witch hunting has been gone a long time.Lets Keep it that way.
I bet that woman has needed a good , hard , spanking for some time. In the great words of the supreme asshole, " Bring it On ". By the way John Mccain , the surge is not working , and you can't win a war twice.Stop the bullshit straight talk express.
The only way the Republicans can win this election is by vote tampering. The company's that make the electronic voting machines that have serious flaws are right wing corporate flunky's .
I bet they pay their workers well.
When it comes to voting for Democrats. There will be many people watching these machines this year.
Put a fork in the GOP. They are done. Hopefully for the next 30 years.
Restore the check and balances, and our Constitution.The Patriot Acts are a horrid group of laws that have nullified the Civil Rights of Americans which the Constitution protects.I do not recognize the Patriot acts as being legal.
The right wing lunatic fringe better reign in their private Army of conintel pro spys and gang stalkers. We are coming after you!!! You're stazi police state days are over.Let the torture law suits fly.
BornFreeMen
Refuse to participate in demonizing Socialism.
You are free to make that choice.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
OK, so the McCain camp is characterized by hypocrisy, lies, and stupidity. As some young people say, "Well, duh!"
Hertzberg's innocence is kind of charming.
One of the clues to the demonization of the word 'socialism' in the US is the reaction of the corporate-financed right-wing think-tanks that sprouted like mushrooms after WWII. As the cold war got into high gear, these think-tanks put out an unbelievable amount of propanda against the left--communism, socialism, unions, even democracy.
I did a major research project on McCarthyism once and I was astounded by the amount of $$$ put into anti-socialism in the years preceding McCarthy's amazing ride. By the time he started to throw out his wild, ridiculous accusations of Reds everywhere, the population had been inundated with anti-socialism/communism propaganda linking the two and emphasizing the anti-religious aspect, etc., with gory exaggerations. The response to his BS was so extreme because the population had been deeply brainwashed with the extreme amount of anti-left propaganda that appeared everywhere--newspapers, magazines, radio, etc.
Nothing of the kind happened--or could have happened--in Europe. On the other hand, Europe had been through the horrors of right-wing madness in Germany, Spain, etc., and it was common knowledge that right-wing excess in the 20s had led to economic/financial collapse, which led to right-wing horrors. Coupled with the innate attractiveness of socialism (we're all in this together, and we need to work together...!??) the left was deemed to be more attractive than the right for the best of reasons.
Any remotely 'modern' democracy (even the US!) has lots of 'socialistic' programs--Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, etc., etc.
The desperate, panic-stricken, last-ditch attack on Obama the socialist by McCain/Palin is so confused, contradictory, and profoundly stupid that it's an embarrassment, even by Repugnantin standards. It appears that their particular brand of divide and conquer has just about run out of steam.
I object to the idea that Europe has increased socialisation of the economy "without any diminution of civil liberty".
If you state - in France, Germany or any of a dozen other countries - that Yakov Wilkomerski's "memoir" was entirely fabricated, you face a convocation at the gendarmerie. (By the way, these paramilitary goons can upend your house without telling you what they are loking for, with no warrant... all that blood we spent in saving their asses from the Krauts was a complete waste).
If you state that you don't give a rat's ass if the Holocaust happened or not, but that if it did it is no surprise that the State would slaughter millions of its own citizens... you face arrest and imprisonment.
And if you refer to the teeny little man who has finagled his way to the French presidency as "a vile little hook-nosed dwarf", you can face charges of anti-semitism (even though Sarkozy is a soi-disant Catholic).
Basically, Europe is a Police State (and France is among the worst since the advent of the aforementioned hook-nosed dwarf). I love France and its people, but its political system (and its government budget) is in absolute crisis - Mr Hertzberg clearly has rose-tinted spectacles on when he lauds the European system.
Cheerio
GT
France (but I'm Australian, one of the ten or so Anglo-Saxon nations that rescued France when her own soldiers had been utterly humiliated twice in a generation. And the French government's gratitude: we are accorded three months visa-free visit, thence to be put in a detention centre and booted out - this has happened to me TWICE)
I am so tired of Anglo-Saxons.
How about thinking of your grand land robberies and the extermination of the indigenious population, the genocide your great liberties are founded on, before praising your lot and firing off tirades against France et al, which you seem to know very little.
So you didn't leave France in time: Guess what, if this happened to you once in the US or Aussieland, you'd be on a watchlist and they wouldn't let you into the country a second time. So France must have been far more generous to you than your Anglo places would be to people who do what you did.
How about those Spanish and Portuguese? GT may or may not be showing some personal prejudice, but he does raise some questions about the state of Europe and the influence of the New World Order. Europe may have made some advancements politically and socially, but that is all under attack now. There have been reports recently of Sarkozsy being a CIA asset, which isn't surprising. Great Britain is Big Brother personified (with the U.S. and others in rapid pursuit). I don't think GT was attacking a social system as such, but the repression which is setting in everywhere, be it France, Germany, Great Britain. And perhaps discuss and apply your reactions to the U.S. border and immigration situation.
And what on earth is wrong with a country having rules for visitors, and expecting them to be followed? And why were you so f****g stupid to make the same mistake twice? Never dawned on you that France is about the most attractive destination on the planet in lots of ways and if they didn't control immigration with some diligence, they'd be flooded with visitors, a lot of them no smarter than you and obviously taking their toll on the country.
It was completely reasonable that France was not able to match Germany militarily. In order to do to, they would pretty much have had to have the same type of frantic, fanatic, fascist military build-up as did the Germans, and thank God really that they didn't have the conditions that led to that.
But, France did the right thing when Hitler invaded Poland and declared war right away, knowing full well that this was going to be hell.
As to Australia 'rescuing' France...that's really a lot of self-flattering crap. The simple reality is that an incredibly dangerous monster developed in Germany that required an all-out effort from many nations to defeat. And who really won that war? The Soviet Red Army. Period. They kicked the living piss out of Hitler, surrounded him and destroyed his eastern escapade in no uncertain terms. After that, Hitler was done. How on earth was he going to prevail when he's been trashed completely in the east and the Red Army is simply going to march to Berlin?
Sure, it required a lot of mopping up on the western side and many nations participated, but the war was over after Hitler's defeat in Russia.
Reality is that France, Germany and most European countries have highly developed social programs--socialistic--and their quality of life is generally very high. But it's not surprising that it's all over the head of someone who is too dumb to abide by straight-forward rules for visitors...TWICE.
Wow. Like Jews much?
I like the "Australia as Anglo-Saxon nation" part, that's real funny.
No Celtic blood at all in those Australians, no way, every one a German.
Why didn't you just get a VISA?
Enough said 'bout this nitwit from down under. I read his post wondering what he had on record against Denmark, Sweden, pre-Thatcher U.K., but it seems he just has a hard-on for France and Germany. Methinks he staggered besotted down one too many avenues inviting women to have a go and was severely rebuked, and will forever hold it against both countries.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
Seems to be more than a whiff of deliberate obtuseness in this discussion.
Take care, there’s a lot of that going around.
Isn’t “socialist” like “communist” or “librul” mostly meant as a pejorative term, in “polite” society?
Isn’t it spewed over the airwaves to engulf our heads everyday?
While you may turn aside, others breathe it in because it gives them a stiff jolt of the “ideology”…the one that believes if you don’t think, talk, act and look like us you’re not with us so you’re with the “enemy”.
What a disturbing (and anarchistic) legacy to leave behind, especially if it’s faked for political expediency. There’s been a heavy dose of that in the air lately too.
But thanks to Mr. Hertzberg for the clever reminder that those who break wind casting such odious aspersions are themselves the source of the stink.
nothing is revealed
Hertzberg has always been a fine writer, and his admirable literary talents are on fine display here.
It is nice to see an establishment liberal magazine like the New Yorker taking aim (however modestly) at the McCain campaign's spurious charges of Obama's socialism and, more importantly, its use of the socialism label as a pejorative.
I'd lay good money that a fair number of the folks who regularly boo on cue at McCain's rallies whenever the topic of Obama's "spreading the wealth around" comes up (and when does it not?) would run McCain out of town on a rail if he said this: "My friends, you know I oppose redistributing wealth so I'm here to tell you that under my administration poor states like Arkansas will receive less federal funding for public education than they do at present. Why should money collected from wealthier states like New Jersey be redistributed in the form of federal public education assistance to poor states like Arkansas? That's socialism, my friends, and it's un-American!"
It actually fils me with a small measure of hope to think that even within as brutally capitalist a system as this one, certain social measures have been undertaken (however inadequate) upon which a socialist future might one day be built. Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to think that these half-measures constitute anything like a sufficient ground for such a future. But even the marginally redistributive efforts of the federal government have inadvertently helped foster a sense of a social movement towards greater egalitarianism. Out of sheer blindness and a desperation to quell social discontent (if nothing else), the capitalist system has sown some of the seeds of its eventual undoing.
Derisive Air Quotes
http://www.wilypython.net/Derisive%20Air%20Quotes%20.asp
It's always been a matter of great amazement to me that there is one place in the world where they are - oblivious of their own history on that front, of course - unaware of socialism, i.e. the USA today. Which is why American voters constantly vote contrary to their - pardon the jargon - class interest and vote for rich guys who make the rich even richer.
Let me even claim that the present financial crisis, originally triggered by the securitization of subprime mortgages, would have been avoidable also if America had a decent tenant law which doesn't push everybody into BUYING a home. Even those who can't afford it.
There are countries in the world where you of course can't get kicked out of a place as a renter in the case of a foreclosure because whoever takes over your house inherits the tenants. OF COURSE. Not so in America, one hears.
There are countries in this world where rents can't be set arbitrarily, where leases last for years, are even unlimited - and tenants show a lot of pride in their rented places and even improve them as a result - and where short-term leases have to be much cheaper than long-term ones, for that very reason, and are generally frowned upon by the law. Not so in America, one hears.
Yeah, that bit of interference in people's, i.e proprietors', greed could also have prevented the present meltdown.
This is just one tiny bit of the "socialism" most of us have imbibed without even knowing about it.
An American ex-diplomat, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and I once had a long and heated discussion at a gathering in Europe, and he came up with a sentence which I hadn't heard before or thought of before but I think he was right:"The difference between you here in Europe and Americans is that you ALL, although most of you are unaware of it, have been influenced by Marxism. Your ideas about right and wrong are just SO strongly influenced by socialism!"
Well, one could also argue that on a far less sophisticated level than Marx, this is what Christians ought to believe in, see the Mountain Sermon et al.
I am an atheist, but the first Christians, following their book, sure acted like a bunch of socialists. I don't know where in the New Testament all these holy rollers in America find a justification for their nasty greed creed.
The holy rollers AREN'T Christians, whatever they and the TV say.
They're the "New Chosen People", they spend all their time on the Old testament and then sing about Jesus in the same terms that a vassal might sing to an earthly lord.
The whole "personal relationship with Christ" thing has NO basis in the Gospels.
That moves as far from what C.S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity" as the Cult of Saints -with less justification and creepier results.
Jesus is quoted in the Book of Luke, Ch.6 v.27-31 (NIV), as saying:
-But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.-
This is not just a message in favor of Peace and Cooperation, nor just one of non-violent resistance, communal property, and social resposibility, but the last verse is actually the BASIS of the Hegelian philosophy that is the basis for much of Socialism!!
And these supposed "Christians" are aginst ALL of it!
Sadly true Matti.
Excellent points and well said -- yes, one of the additional painful aspect of all these midbegotten home owners (and yes, I did buy because I could not afford to rent) is the lack of mobility that results when you can't decamp for the other side of the country to take a job (or be near family in need or pull-up-stakes for whatever reason, like a divorce -- hate to think all of the about all of the eager to be divorced couples stuck with "joint property" -- not to mention all of the empty-nesters who REALLY should and might want to downsize to a smaller, easier to maintain property but are stuck with "the family home")
There are actually lots of reasons buying isn't all it's cracked up to be. Borrowing to buy and buying to create collateral to borrow large sums (like for your kids education) has been the theory ... but it too is a pyramid scheme when wages are flat and ... we're all getting older.
I digress.
But excellent points anyway. Thanks.
Good article followed by an excellent discussion.
The other day some Republican anchorwoman in Florida asked Joe Biden if Obama might be a Marxist who would lead us to a social democracy like Sweden. Biden gave her an idiot grin, and said, "Are you kidding?" He might have mentioned that Sweden has the world's highest standard of living, some of the best education & health care, probably the longest life expectancy, etc. But no, he ran from the very thought, just like he and Barry will run from "change" once they are slopping at the trough.
Bubbasouth,
The question was a joke, and Joe B treated it as such!
Warren Buffet serves as one of Obama's key advisors on the economy.
Buffet, a premier world financier, a socialist?
I should be that kind of socialist!
No, you should be the good kind ;)
Ya, great job of pointing out the hypocracy of the desperate campaigning of McCain and Palin.
I think McCain and Palin are going to have a hard time convincing voters to reject the extra money Obama might provide for average Americans. The subtle differences between socialism and massive government bailouts are lost on me too.
Maybe they should stick to what works in Pennsylvania: bold-faced racism.
And we complain that Obama isn't far enough to the left to be elected in the land of the sheeple.
Wow. Do you see the world through anything other than Telecommunications Media?
Being called "Socialist" will NOT hurt Obama in the U.S., it will help him.
"Wow. Do you see the world through anything other than Telecommunications Media?"
What difference does it make? Most of the voting sheeple do.
An open challenge to Common Dreams.
C'mon, publish it.
I dare you. I double-dare you.
Go ahead; click it. You'll feel better.
Yes, thanks, WT2, for pointing out this article.
Let's have sharp, vigorous debate. If there are to be common dreams, let there be no constraints on the debate. Bring on the Obama paeans, but temper them with objectivity.
Matt Gonzalez simply shreds the Obama facade, and it's not a pretty sight. What we have with Obama is a Ronald Reagan-praising, Goldman Sachs-funded phoney. Gonzalez shines a light on the monstrous actions of Obama, which speak louder than any of his "hopeful" rhetoric.
A word about being bold: Common Dreams has succeeded only because it has grabbed some of the writing that mainstream corporate news outlets routinely ignore. At a certain point, every editor may find their views challenged. It's tough to be objective, but editors must strive for it. Always publish challenging views. Readers will love you for it in the long term.
-TIA
I did not vote for Obama, nor McCain, nor Nader. My overarching concern is life. Not just the limited view of life as often debated in the death penalty and abortion, but a full and expanded view of life that is basic to our very existence. The life view that understands that everything is alive in spirit (energy), and therefore everything is connected through spirit (energy). Environmental degradation is anti-life, human degradation is anti-life, spiritual degradation is anti-life. Today America is in the grip of a death culture and ONLY a life culture is big enough to challenge it and reverse it. There can be no sacred cow's in the life/death struggle, because ultimately, only life or death will result. Not one candidate for President supports life in it's fullest understanding. That lack of support for life is their Achilles Heel, and their policies will rest on a flawed foundation of death, and lead to more death. We all understand that we are reaching a critical state of live or death. Global warming can lead to an extinction event, and nuclear war can lead to an extinction event. ONLY an appreciation of life in it's fullest sense and a collective determination to sustain it will move us away from the brink of extinction. Sacred cow arguments are irrelevant.
Thanks welshTerrier2, good article, which will likely not appear on this site, nor will the news that Howard Zinn has retracted his original cautious support of Obama and has stated he will vote for Nader.
Where did Zinn retract his statement on Obama? Do you have a link?
I was pretty shocked when both Zinn and Chomsky defended Obama. :(
My understanding is that Zinn said people in safe states (Zinn is in Massachusetts) should vote for Nader. I do not think he extended this to competitive states.
I think he's wrong about that.
Here ya go ... I can't vouch for the website but here's a link.
Oops ...
Corrected link to Zinn's letter to Nader.
Yes, that's essentially what Chomsky said, too.
I just found a link to Zinn's comments: http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2008/10/28/zinn-wont-be-voting-for-obama-after-all/
He is ripping into Nader for saying civic action doesn't work - WTF? I always thought Nader supported civic activity.
Whether or not Zinn votes for Obama is really inconsequential. His point is really the same: Electoral politics don't change things, when the embers of change aren't present in the electorate. Nader is not Eugene Debs and does not have a powerful progressive/socialist electorate behind him.
Nader's candidacy this year is an embarassment. Look, I supported Nader 8 years ago when there was some vibrancy to his campaign, but after watching his half-hearted 2004 and 2008 efforts I see that Nader is not the way forward.
welshTerrier2 appears to be just another Naderite who'd bet on a solar-powered Yugo in a Nascar race. No sponsors, no advertising, no pit crew, no chance in hell of winning.... but at least intellectually and morally pure... and earth friendly.
Thanks, but pragmatist that I am, I'll cast my vote for a candidate who actually has a chance of winning and making a difference... even if he doesn't walk on water all the time.
Who will he make a difference for? The Afghan people? The Pakistanis, whose countries he plans to bomb? How about the homeless in this country? Those who are begging in the streets? Do you think he'll make a difference for them? How about those being foreclosed out of their homes? Do you think he'll make a difference for them? Read the bailout bill that Obama helped pushed through - there is NO assistance for people who are forced to foreclose.
I guess Obama will be making a difference for the defense contractors, since he plans to increase defense spending. He plans to keep 50,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq, and a good number of those will be Blackwater thugs. I guess that'll make a difference for the Blackwater Corporation.
But you just go on believing he'll "make a difference" for us regular folks. The definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Forget it.
That person is either bought in, or beyond rationality.
Notice how they assume in their analogy that the factors that keep Nader out of the spotlight, with little "chance" of winning are just as inherent to the process as the "stock" nature of "stock cars" in "stock car racing" is.
This represents near-total disassociation with history and reality.
Then notice how this disassociation is presented as being "pragmatic", as if SELF-DETERMINATION (with its inherent personal understanding of reality) was itself not a "practical" goal or even a goal at all.
Then of course the classic projection. It is OBAMITES that hold their candidate in the same non-critical regard that Christians hold Jesus of Nazareth, while Nader and third-party voters tend to hold more reality-based opinions of theirs. Yet it is the Naderites who are always accused of such religious failure to scrutinize by the Obamites. Projection, pure and simple.
Remember, though, if people have really become "ungrounded" to the extent that it now seems with some Dem voters and almost all Repub voters, they will NOT realize their mistake when their man disappoints them.
They will turn on us.
I'm beginning to think Nader enjoys having Republicans in control; while they pillage and rape the American people, and shred the constitution, he gets to feel both self-righteous and gets lots of attention -- for doing nothing.
That is the very definition of a fellow traveler of the facist dictatorship. Therefore, Nader is a facist.
Patriots defend the constitution!
You're an idiot.
Very adult argument there.
Patriots defend the constitution!
That is a great piece.
Gonzalez would have blown Biden and Palin off the stage in the debate; Nader with his eyes closed could eviscerate Obama and McCain in a debate.
It's just so obvious which candidates care about this country.
He loves the country so much he continues to do everything he can to make sure the Republicans stay in control, pillage and rape the people and shred the constitution.
Such love I can do without, thank you.
Patriots defend the constitution!
I like making things up about the people I don't like too!
Watch:
~foxwizard~ is really a, uhh...COYOTEMAGE!
Gotcha!
He loves the country so much he continues to do everything he can to make sure the Republicans stay in control, pillage and rape the people and shred the constitution.
Such love I can do without, thank you.
Patriots defend the constitution!
"Patriots defend the Constitution!"
Now that, my friend, makes a whole lot of sense.
Consider the following ...
"Sen. Obama supported one of the worst attacks on civil liberties in recent history, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which extended an earlier law granting law enforcement expanded powers to search telephone, e-mail, and financial and medical records, in addition to granting the federal government a host of other powers to combat so-called domestic terrorism. After saying he would oppose it if elected to the U.S. Senate (NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03), in July 2005, Obama voted for it.
But this wasn’t enough. After entering the presidential race and running on a "change” message, Obama vowed in February of 2008 to vote against—and filibuster if necessary—the FISA bill amendment (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that gave immunities to telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. This eavesdropping program clearly violated the privacy of law-abiding Americans at the behest of the president, and made the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover seem tame by comparison. Those voting in favor of the bill didn’t even first require full disclosure to see how deep the illegal conduct extended and agreed to apply the law retroactively.
Despite his promises to the contrary, and despite the vehement protests of many of his supporters, when the FISA bill came to the Senate for a vote this past July, Sen. Obama voted for it without explaining how this vote fit in with his change message or reconciled with his repeated claims he was going to protect the American people from repeated assaults on civil liberties by President Bush. Here was his chance to lead and make good on his promise, and what did he do?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the FISA bill "an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance" (ACLU press release, 7/9/08). Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office called the bill "a Constitutional nightmare” and noted "with one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant.”"
You spoke the truth: Patriots defend the Constitution. Very well said !!!
I also predict that whoever is in the White House is going to get pressured to attack Venezuela. Bolivia is in the process of reframing their Constitution. Morales won with the largest margin of victory for a South American candidate - ever.
The power elite in Washington is scared shitless that neoliberalism is being rejected out of hand in our backyard - down in South America. That's just too close to home for them. Evo just threw the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia out of the country and closed the U.S. Embassy there. Washington understands that if the American people get a whiff of that wholesale rejection and what these leaders like Lula, Evo, and Chavez are doing for their people - nationalizing energy resources, health care, education, job training, whatever - the elite will have to use military force to keep Americans from protesting and demonstrating.
Hundreds of thousands are turning out for these Obama rallies. What is going to happen when these people realize that Obama won't deliver for them? Where will that political energy that he mobilized end up?
I'll tell you where it will end up - in one of 2 places. Either there will be some demonstrations around the country that are quickly squashed by NorthCom; or those people will turn inward completely and end up in a spiraling downward mass of complacency, which will then open the door in 2012 for an even more authoritarian and reactionary wing of the Republican party. The Republican party is pissed - they are pissed at themselves, they are pissed at Obama, they are just a pissed-off party, and all they need is a foot in the door in 2012 to blow in and show us, with their authoritarianism, their policies eradicating minimum wage, and their police state, how pissed they actually are.
They're already planning for 2012: Sarah Palin 4 Prez.
SOCIALISM? Excuse me …a reminder here!
What is it that the Republicans do not understand about justice as delineated in the historic documents of this nation? They call it “socialism” and I call it the support and strengthening of the people in our communities. Moreover, I think the Republicans are being dishonest by working overtime to make their followers blind to the principles for which this land was created.
What if, and I say IF……because this country is so immense in area, that if we do not provide for the whole of its people….then we as a nation may end up being divided and at odds with one another. Maybe that is the plan.
Because resources are becoming scarce, our divisions could become more geographical, such as mountains, rivers, and of course ideology. Do we NOT see this! We could have internal wars for resources just like other nations.
Yes, this could happen here, because some populations by no fault of their own are being consistently denied the resources’ that nurture life. The example being New Orleans and the Katrina aftermath.
None of us is free from natural disasters, natural or manmade. However, how can we feel safe in the knowledge that our social order will hold together without the support of the rest of the country? Who stands up for you or me? Our laws do! Who enforces these laws? You and I do!
When we all learn to stand together as a whole, we can confront our government as a united people. We can then demand that as a “united” people that our laws for human rights are to be enforced.
The laws of this nation are so beautifully and eloquently written and their intent cannot be misunderstood.
1) United States Declaration of Independence -
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, Paragraph four:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
Then we have our right to address our Government for grievances that are set forth in our Constitution:
2) United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was completed on September 17, 1787
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Our Human Rights are then set forth in:
3) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
THIS IN NOT SOCIALISM! THIS IS THE LAW OF THE LAND!
We just need to remind our Government and the Republicans of this fact and that they are compelled by these laws to provide for the people…ALL of the people. Let it be said again that taxation without representation and the dishonest use of the people’s resources/money (bailout) is against said principals and the law of the land.
- “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” - Movie – “V for Vendetta”
Since you are mentioning the UDHR:
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
I.e. the death penalty is illegal in every country that signed the Declaration. International law is after all above national law.
In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein states that the real enemy of the capitalist elites and neoliberalism has never been authoritarian socialism/Stalinism. (In fact, Stalinism made a handy enemy). Instead, they accused their Democratic Socialist detractors of being Stalinists to damage their credibility with the rest of us.
Food for thought.
While it may seem that calling Obama a socialist is reverting to a cold war tactic, I would actually claim that it indicates the political right's fear of a popular and collective assault on neo-liberalism.
Neo-liberalism is unsustainable. The elite must have some creeping sense of this. And that, I think, is why they call Obama a socialist. The people who manufactured this outrageous attack on Obama have taken a poly-sci course and can identify the difference between a centrist (or left-centrist?) and a left-wing socialist.
While I'm not incredibly excited about Barack, I am excited that socialism has become an issue in the past week or two. Thanks McCain!
Wikipedia defines Socialism as:
"A broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."
To bring about an egalitarian society, we must work towards giving each and every citizen and equal voice in their government. To bring about an egalitarian society, we must have a court system that does not distinguish between rich man's justice and poor man's justice. To bring about an egalitarian society, obstacles to third parties must be removed.
Most Americans more than understand that money, especially big corporate money, controls what happens in Washington and in state capitals all over the country. Money doesn't talk it swears.
Has Obama ever mentioned, even once, the corruption big money causes in our democracy? He can scream middle class tax cut a billion times and still will not have spoken the truth about what the real problem is.
Our so called system of justice could not be less egalitarian. We've allowed "justice" to be turned into a commodity. The wealthy can afford the "good" lawyers; the poor cannot.
What did Obama do to protect the "little people" against the mega-corporations? Obama voted with the Republicans to pass the Class Action Fairness Act. This act makes it almost impossible for a group of citizens to sue a large corporation. Meet Barack Obama, corporatist. Obama voted to give corporations even more power over we, the people.
When the Democratic Party kicked Gravel and Kucinich, both ballot-qualified candidates, out of their debates, Obama and the other Democrats said nothing about it. When the Republicans and Democrats, using the Commission on Presidential Debates, that they, not the American people, control, prevented ballot-qualified third party candidates from participating in the national debates, Mr. Egalitarian Socialist uttered not a single word about it.
Obama is no egalitarian. His "redistribution of wealth" is little more than the handing out of bandages to those wounded by capitalism's abuses; he offers no fix for the underlying inequities.
Obama, unfortunately, is no Socialist - he's no egalitarian either.
WelshTerrier2
Excellently stated.
well said.
it has become clear that no matter how non-liberal democrats become they are labeled as liberal.
Obama is certainly not a liberal (at least by any measure that gets outside of our current legislature), he is centrist/conservative in virtually all of his senate votes - he has very few liberal policies. You need to go to Kucinich to get any where close to liberal in the US gov't.
"Socialist" is the label that gets used when "liberal" loses its effectiveness. Much like changing your medicine when a tolerance is built up.
Let's start telling the truth to the Merkin people: We have political democracy in this country (to the extent that we actually do have it), and we have economic fascism.
Democracy and free-market capitalism (or neoliberalism) do not go hand in hand. They never will.
I've begun reading "Capital" again, which I haven't read since college. Apparently, sales of Marx's books are on the rise again. No surprise there. Neoliberalism is failing miserably around the world.
yes, McCain/Palin are "desensitizing" the American people to the word "socalism" ... this is a good thing ... very helpful.
I agree -- the "two party system" makes a sham of "democracy" (not to mention the electoral college, campaign finance, and the corporatization of the news and "all media" ... everything, and I mean everything, is done to make a buck, to put in your pocket and taken home to enhance the power and wealth of the already wealthy ...
Hopefully many of those who have been watching their "retirement planning" fruits dwindle will fight like hell to keep social security aloft ...
"There is a whole shelf of books on the question of why socialism never became a real mass movement here."
If there is ANY hope left for this dying country (Republic) then it MUST begin leaning toward Democratic Socialism. Capitalism has failed MISERABLY as a fair and equitable system; there is no longer an "American Dream"...GET OVER IT! All the $$$$ are flowing up and there is no reason to expect anything different in the future.
There is no longer a "We The People"; it has become "Us The Pawns". If that does not ring true to you then you are in a deep and dark state of denial.
NO elections in their current form, in a two-party ONLY system, in a war-mongering, "bail-out-the-wealthy" mentality, in a pseudo-religious society, has ANY hope of being a TRUE Democratic Republic...PERIOD!
Socialism has gotten a dirty reputation thanks to the Capitalistic Pigs that programmed us all in schools, newspapers, and movies. But what does Democratic Socialism REALLY stand for? Sounds like a True Progressive's dream! Open your minds:
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
Scratch Open A Cynic And You Will Find An Angry Idealist.
yes, first we demand that Obama close Guantanamo ... then we demand health care ...
If "we" can afford this bailout, we sure as hell can afford nationalized health ...
As stated before in the article, the fact that McCain is attacking socialism and making a reference to Modernized European countries is ridiculous and that fact that people don't recognize its insanity is amazing. He's trying to criticize Obama for being a socialist (witch he is far from) and he doesn't mention that the countries he referenced are doing much better than us! He attacks socialism for the sake of it being socialism. If he we're to attack it for it's success in foreigh countries no one would listen to him. well, the repub whackjobs would.
What makes you think "...people don't recognize its insanity..."?
We must always be aware of what information about the World we are getting from our own experiences, and what we are getting from Telecommunications Media.
At least where I'm at, almost everbody gets what your saying -and their all crazy mountain-folks.
If Obama were truly a socialist - one who renounced his pro-war imperialist pro-nuclear positions along with his pro-corporate ones - I would vote for him. As it is, he's a closet Republican, as most so-called "Democrats" are, and does not deserve anyone's vote.
It would be very interesting to see just how well the "socialist-pinko-boogyman" card plays among various demographics.
Yes, anglo americans over a certain age may respond like Pavlov dogs to red-baiting ... but I'd be curious just how well this tactic works among young voters who -- perhaps through the better education college is supposed to afford -- understand that somehow Europe has a MUCH better standard of living and more humane work environment as a result just these sorts of "socialist" initiatives.
When you add in the lower classes who are more than likely to know someone "unassisted" by the feds in the face of their own foreclosure, or stuck unemloyed, underemployed and/or with no real prospects with a lifetime of poverty stretching out in front of them ... I think a rallying cry of "Help is on the way" beats further scoldings and exhortation about pulling onself up by one's bootstraps.
Yes, this bail out of the well-to-do and wealthy may put ideas in some people's heads.
Don't forget the LARGE majorities that favor "government guarantees of Health care for all".
You have to be pretty stupid to not get that that would be a Socialist concept.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "S-word" is pushing people TOWARD Obama, not away.
"I wouldn't be surprised if the "S-word" is pushing people TOWARD Obama, not away."
Good point. In light of the economy being in the toilet, this is highly likely. More people contacted their representatives after Paulson unveiled the bailout (overwhelmingly against it) than on any other issue in modern history. Americans know what the bailout means - socialism for the wealthy, subsidies for the wealthy, a free handout for the wealthy - whatever you want to call it, it's for the wealthy, not for the working stiffs.
People are HURTING. There are no jobs, what jobs are available are low paying, no benefits, no future. Health care is a travesty. So when they hear "redistribution of wealth," the only negative connotation it could possibly have is that the wealthy are the recipients of the "redistribution." At least in this country.
The bailout was the final (successful) attempt to tie Obama's hands once he's in office. Crushing debt = no social programs. My guess is that the new "filibuster-proof" Congress will use 2 things to "let us down gently" on why they can't enact any of Obama's programs: 1) the debt is too overwhelming; 2) they have to "appease" the conservative Dems and Republicans who swung to Obama and garnered him the election, so anything progressive will be "off the table."
It's not just the hundreds of thousands of people showing up at Obama rallies - there have been millions of people working his ground game around the country. What are they going to do when he turns on them? When they realize they were conned?
They'll be mad.
But at whom?
"young voters who -- understand that somehow Europe has a MUCH better standard of living and more humane work environment as a result just these sorts of "socialist" initiatives."
Maybe just having not grown up with their heads under their grade-school desks when the air raid sirens went off is enough to make dangling the commie bogeyman before them an exercise in futility - they just don't see the red menace. I think a lot of us don't anymore, that's why the powers that be continually seek new bogeymen to frighten us with.
You're right about the bailout, too. Maybe some will see that corporate socialism is working out for the investor class and demand something for themselves, socialism or not.
I am in the "duck and cover" generation. I remember the drills in grade school.
What sickens me about Obama channeling Reagan is that Obama uses these fake and phony buzzwords to put Reagan in some kind of positive light - "entrepreneurship," or "individual determination," or whatever other phrase du jour he coughs up. The election of Raygun in 1980 was the very beginning of the right-wing slide in this country on a national scale. Reagan and his cronies wanted nothing more than to dismantle FDR's social programs - that was one of their biggest goals, and it always has been. If the Repubs had their way, we wouldn't even have public education in this country. Dismantle the social programs of FDR, roll back the civil rights gains of the 1950s through the 1970s.
It's a dead giveaway that you are not on the side of the working class when you are holding up Ronnie Raygun as one of your "role models."
"Obama channeling Reagan"
I am assuming that was a bit of a slip, Blair, not a Freudian one, and that you actually meant McCain as the reagan channeler. You don't want to give the attack dogs here any free ammunition.
In addition to all his other flaws, Reagan took the country back 20 years on race relations. An Obama presidency would finally lift us past that low point.
McCain and Palin are a couple of amoral scumbags trying every dirty trick in the book to scare people into voting for them. In less than a week from now, after they've been beaten like a couple of old throw rugs, I'll be sending them both personal congratulations for their part in heaping yet another layer of shit on the already horribly degraded state of US political discourse, and for helping steer the republican party along the path to Whig-dom.
How is it that the Values Voters have not noticed someone named McCain shouting "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Practice Joy
Prior to Palin becoming an elected official in Alaska, the state already had a history of getting more money per capita from the US Government than any other state. In recent years Alaska got nearly $1,000 per capita whereas the amounts in the "lower 48 states" ranged from $30-$38 per capita, making Alaska one of the planet's most socialized, if not THE most socialized venue.
As mayor of Wasilla, Palin quickly demonstrated her acumen for enhancing this history by garnering the same amount of Federal earmarks for Wasilla as Boise, Idaho (which has a population 30 times greater than Wasilla).
"In recent years Alaska got nearly $1,000 per capita whereas the amounts in the "lower 48 states" ranged from $30-$38 per capita, "
Do you have a source for this, and what were the payments for?
Why not take ten seconds and google "Alaska federal subsidies" and find a "source" yourself?
People in Alaska get Federal money for merely residing in Alaska.
Its not much, and it doesn't really make up for the higher cost of Big Macs, but its something.
Its to encourage people to live there, since its so "wildernessy".
"Why not take ten seconds and google "Alaska federal subsidies" and find a "source" yourself?"
Part of the reason I asked my question was that there was no attempt to define exactly what they meant. They had said:
"In recent years Alaska got nearly $1,000 per capita whereas the amounts in the "lower 48 states" ranged from $30-$38 per capita, "
It's not clear if that is to individuals, to the State or a combination. Or whether it was for welfar or unemployment or what else. And until we know exactly what is maent, we can't say if your suggestion will help any especially regarding the figures from all the other states, but thanks all the same.
Cool.
So you just ignored the portion of my post that you didn't quote?
We don't need some kind of scientific proof of this.
I have LIVED in Alaska!
People there get YEARLY checks from the Feds for living there.
NO OTHER STATE has such an arrangement.
This is all widely dispersed public knowledge.
Do you really think there is a chance that some sort of complex of indirect subsidies can surpass this direct one?
Don't you see that there is a qualitative difference here?
Alaskans get Direct subsidies for residing there, nobody else anywhere else does.
"So you just ignored the portion of my post that you didn't quote?"
It was unsupported. BTW I did google the phrase you suggested and it came up with nothing to spell out the subsidies, payments etc.
"People there get YEARLY checks from the Feds for living there."
I don't doubt this, I was looking for the specifics. I am aware that they get money from the state.
"This is all widely dispersed public knowledge."
If true it should be, so it should be easy to find a source that spells out the specifics of the program. I added the word "residents" to the phrase and nothing comes up regarding a federal program.
"Do you really think there is a chance that some sort of complex of indirect subsidies can surpass this direct one?"
Sorry, I'm not that interested in the question. To be clear, someone made a specific statement as fact that I am unsure of, and am trying to get to the bottom of it. Thanks.
The article gets it half right: It points out that a wide variety of sane and decent people are socialists. But it fails to point out that Obama and Biden aren't among them.
What's really funny is that the US is already part socialist: We've got socialized (that is, public) schools, socialized libraries, socialized roads, socialized mass transit, socialized parks, socialized water systems. Many areas have socialized electric utilities, like the excellent Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD). Socialism is as American as apple pie, but people are blind to that reality.
What would a (moderate) socialist advocate? Well, they might start with universal health care. Since true socialized medicine is probably too extreme for the American public to swallow, they might advocate a single payer system like they have in Canada. (As opposed to true socialized medicine as they have in that bastion of radicalism, Great Britain).
I expect socialists would advocate redistribution of wealth downward through progressive taxes, a living wage, and labor law reform, to counter the class warfare that the rich have waged over the past 30 years that's warped the US distribution of income so that it matches many 3rd world dictatorships (I'm not exaggerating here. Check out the US' Gini Index, a measure of income inequality. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html It's not only higher than any other wealthy country's it's higher than most 3rd world countries.)
A socialist would be talking about ending US imperialism, bringing our troops home not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Bosnia, Turkey, Iceland, Spain, ... (see http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm#General)
Socialists would talk about full employment doing jobs for people not profit.
Unfortunately, the US has uni-polar disorder, where most are convinced there's only one way of looking at the world and one ideal economic system, free market capitalism. Socialism is a 4-letter word, beyond the pale.
Obama's mantra of "Change" will probably open the spigot to allow slightly more wealth to dribble down to the rest of us, but the trend toward increasing power and wealth in the hands of the few will continue.
Dfairley
Intelligently and persuasively stated.
dfairley October 29th, 2008 1:41 pm
"The article gets it half right: It points out that a wide variety of sane and decent people are socialists. But it fails to point out that Obama and Biden aren't among them."
Actually they are, along with McCain. The 850 billion dollar Wall Street bailout that they all voted for socialized the failure of the banking industry.
Lobo Gris
Obviously both McCain and Obama support socialism for the rich, the free market for the poor. See also "too big to fail."
Great article, two problems. First, the Republicans don't value the truth. Second, even if they did, their base wouldn't be smart enough or open minded enough to understand it. Joe the alleged plumber is a case in point.
As every Republican knows, all policies not Republican are Communist and all persons not Republican are traitors.
Who would be your very best example of a Republican who ascribes to this, and please state why.
For a huge raft of analyses of such statements from the GOP, begin with Nixonland by Rick Perlstein. It should allow you to read between the lines and see that even when commentators are not taking note, the GOP is constantly saying just this.
Michelle Bachmann, because she is a drooling, shuffling idiot and an avatar of fear.
What exactly has she said that would show she beleives "all policies not Republican are Communist and all persons not Republican are traitors."?
There's this one argument in defense of the 2-Party system that pairs 'individualism' alongside 'collectivism', both ideologies necessary and not contradictory; sort of like the Yin-Yang Buddhist symbol represents male/female rather than good vs evil. We all mature 'individually', but always within the context of interdependent 'societal' structures, organizations, families, occupational trades, professional institutions, in education, health care, governmental representation, workplace, etc.
Republican Right wing ideology upholds 'individualism' as the be-all, end-all, 'freedom' in the most vacuous sense. Democratic Left wing ideology upholds the more complex reality of 'societal' structures. Even the most diehard republican relies upon tens of thousands of faceless 'others' for theirs and their family's every need -- housing, furnishings, power, water, food, clothing, accessable transportation, etc etc. All societies are socialist. No community can survive without cooperative institutions. Those who vehemently decry socialism, immorally deny their own obligation as members in an undeniably cooperative society.
I agree with some of what you wrote at least, but it doesn't answer my questions. Thanks anyway.
The comment by Class Act was presumptuous. Very few republicans actually believe non-republicans are communists. Those that do are misinformed and being illogically argumentative. Communism in practice becomes a Right wing philosophy as centralized government control becomes dictatorial. Socialism is a fact of life. Communism is closer to fascism than socialism.