What ‘Socialist’ Policies Will Do To America if Barack Obama has a Second Term
In our nation’s capital, Mead writes, organizations like the Progressive Policy Institute have been pushed aside by “a new wave of more left-wing think tanks and organizations.” Mead does not name them, but he is referring to ones like the Center for American Progress and the Institute for Policy Studies, both of which have released position papers urging Obama to bypass Congress and to rule by executive fiat.
As Mead explains, the “Clintonian, retreat and conserve Democrats have become almost invisible in Washington.” In state and city governments, fleeing businesses, budget deficits, and a shrinking tax base are forcing even Democratic governors and mayors to institute budget cuts, take on fights with once-strong public sector unions, and to “embrace the causes of retrenchment and reform.”
Therefore, states like California and New York have seen once “liberal” political leaders fight institutions that form the core of their own party’s base, namely public sector unions like the two teachers’ unions: the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.
No wonder some Democrats — like their leadership in the coal-mining state of West Virginia — have announced they will not attend the Democratic convention. The Obama policies have produced loss of jobs and a dismal outlook for the electorate in that state. Mead thinks that while “the dominance of the left at the national level looks impressive today,” it may indeed be on its last legs — unless our leaders decide we may as well be the next Greece, with only China left to bail us out.
Returning to Steven Erlanger’s article: the perceptive bureau chief is correct that socialism succeeded even in the United States — in the sense that Sklar means. Erlanger notes that the working class has already in fact been emancipated in the United States, without the kind of “revolution” the sectarian Left thinks it needs to change the world. Workers have entered the middle class, and our tax system has already “largely done its job.”
Unfortunately, the socialists in Europe and the Obamacrats in the United States think it has not worked — that they need to turn to authoritarian rule in order to implement redistribution of wealth by taking it from those they call the wealthy, with policies that will make everyone poorer. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the French socialists are implementing new taxes on the rich — of course — as the way to deal with budget deficits.
I fully agree with Ron Radosh’s splendid analysis of the alarming authoritarian statism that we already face. I made a more schematic attempt to describe the trouble we are in with yet another Obama administration here: http://clarespark.com/2012/06/29/the-neutered-state/. And I fully recommend the Martin Sklar book that Radosh mentions. Sklar reminds us that the [statist] progressive movement was bipartisan.
I’d also point out that every swingin’ dick of those statists/fascists/collectivist was ELECTED by our parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors…
I fully agree with Ron Radosh’s splendid analysis of the authoritarian statism that we face now, and that will only worsen with a second Obama administration. In a briefer and more schematic blog, I tried to the same here: http://clarespark.com/2012/06/29/the-neutered-state/. I also concur with the recommendation that everyone read Martin Sklar’s excellent work on the progressive movement, a bipartisan one that should put us on guard.
“Erlanger quotes one French editor who admits that “Socialism here is very statist.” I’m sure if I were to search, I would find an editor who would say the same about the Democratic Party as now constituted in this country.”
I’m sure you could – several in fact. And what unimpeachable validation that would be!
Argentina in 2001 is what 4 more years will deliver.
Currency collapse, mass confiscation of 401k’s (except those TBTF) to bail out Wall Street campaign donors and the death of the middle class.
That’s the change your getting and if you are foolish enough to not vote for Romney, it’s the change you deserve…
Exactly. Every step Obama has taken, even the timing of those steps, is an EXACT replay of Argentina during Peron and during the Kirchners. Unfortunately, it will take Argentina another 30 years to recuperate from their government theft and destruction if the government regime were to be replaced today.
It’s simple. A socialist is someone who thinks everything benefits from a government program, and bureaucracies are never wrong, or redundant.
Oh wait, maybe that’s the Democrats…sometimes I have trouble telling them apart…
It seems to me that the real difference between French Socialists and American Democrats is that only the latter are Keynesians.
This can be seen from your NYT quote about the new French gov. program:
“To meet a 3 percent [deficit] target in 2013, an additional $41.2 billion in tax revenue and spending cuts will have to be found”
How long before Krugman complains about Socialist policies “from the left”?
Further down in the same NYT article I find:
“spending cuts would seem to be inevitable to meet the 2013 target.”
This means that, if the French gov. finds itself at the peak of the Laffer curve, spending cuts will have to be much greater than planned to prevent France from going the way of Greece and Argentina. A Socialist President might find it easier to persuade French people that cuts are unavoidable.
Also interesting is the French editor saying that “Socialism here is very statist.”
I tend to think of socialism and statism as pretty much the same thing, or maybe of socialism as a subset of statism, but apparently in France they use an older terminology.
he might have ment “Colbertist”
Let’s be fair to Keynes. What Krugman and the Obama administration are pushing is neo-Keynesianism. It’s original Keynsianism turned up to 11. It’s the magic unicorn solution that’s still given credence in the US because the US isn’t as far down the statist road as Europe. Some of the “blue” US states have arrived at the same end of the fiscal road that Europe has and are having to make tough choices, but the federal government is still in the happy delusion stage.
Quite right, but being fair to Keynes, in my book, means being brutally honest; and if I must be honest, Keynes’ fault was that he was a fantasist, not a realist.
Keynes’ prescription was to raise taxes + interest rates and lower spending in a boom;
then lower taxes + interest rates and increase spending in a recession.
If Keynes had given some thought about the incentives of the ruling class, he’d have known that what they’d do is:
lower interest rates and increase spending in a recession,
then raise taxes (Laffer curve permitting) in a boom.
I call this 1way-Keynesianism.
As you correctly point out, much of Western Europe, as well as many US States, have no more leeway: they MUST cut spending in a recession, or go bankrupt. (Or they could claim, in an outraged voice, that they are “entitled” to a bailout.)
The point I was trying to make is that imho the continental Europeans never were 1way-Keynesians to start with: they stumbled into 1way-Keynesian policies only because it suited the class interests of the ruling class.
People outside the ruling class were never seduced by 1way-Keynesian nonsense.
Wow, wow, wow! Your description would fit the needs of a FBI search poster describing the culprit. I have sent a copy of your article to a dear old friend who follows Obama “true believer”-like, particuarly the distaste for the rich, if not hate for “the” millionaires (which stresses our friendship because my son is a multimillionaire and I do not take kindly to class denigration). The interesting point is that my friend, at the beginning of the reign of King Obama, followed Sam Tannenhaus’s thesis that Obama is naught but a restrained Burkean reformer, just curing the weak spots of the system. No matter what quotations from the changer who wanted to realize a “fundamental transformation” (how unBurkean can words sound?) I brought forth, the Burkean (sic) Obama survived. I have sent your article to my friend and asked if you have not described him and if he still thinks Obama is a mere Burkean reformer. I will let you know the answer, if I get one. I suspect that self-deception will rule the waves of ideological self-identity. When is a Democrat not a socialist? When he does not want to admit it!
“Rather than seek to increase productivity and to reform the antiquated social policies that lead to educated youth facing a future without a job market, their answer is the traditional one favored by the sectarian Left — getting it from the hides of the wealthy.”
yet the french productivity is the highest in the world. If there’s recession on the planet, you can’t decreat growth from thin air. The Youth in France still can find a job as the 68 generation is retiring.
The left applies exactly the same recept that sarkozy did, that the other EZ countries in austerity do, just that the discourse is more PC for the working class.
And do you appreciate that your rich earn thousand time what a basic worker does? I’m not worried about these Rich parasits that haven’t invested their assets into the national economy but in low cost labour force countries, and in fiscal paradises. Also, there’s little to expect from such announces, apart in a political discourse to appease the mobs, of course they are cheated !
“Just as Mr. Hollande wants to hire more teachers, raise the minimum wage, and create a state bank”
Hollande will not create these positions from thin air, but will be taken from other administrations which have to diminish by 2,5% pro year.
Also, the minimum wage raised by 1,5%, nothing to worry as it doesn’t cover inflation, and it was a bone given to his electors, before that the reality hurts !
The element of socialism being forgotten in this article but not by this administration is the desire to control consciousness. Especially without it being apparent that is what is occurring. Marx wanted consciousness to reflect class. When that theory did not pain out, there was always education to get at the values, attitudes, and beliefs that are the prevailing culture.
That’s what Outcomes Based Education (OBE) has always been about which is why it tracks back to the Progressive Educators Association’s 8 Year Study in the 1930s. It was always intended to alter the US politically, economically, and socially. It was run by the regional accreditation bodies that today are owned mostly by a single entity, a company called AdvancED. That is involved with pushing the UN’s Quality Assurance indoctrination compliance program.
Arne Duncan has pushed to increase the power of the accreditors in both K-12 and higher ed. The unseen enforcement arm of OBE and the desire to get at consciousness. In higher ed, the Sword of Damocles is participation in the federal student loan program. In K-12 it is the catastrophic loss of property values in districts that have lost accreditation. Plus some states, like Georgia, are giving the accreditors more power.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/if-education-transforms-values-and-feelings-and-beliefs-to-control-behaviors-are-we-free/ is the story I wrote yesterday on this drive to alter values, feelings, beliefs, and emotional dispositions in order to create predictable behaviors.
This is being mandated through the NCLB waivers. Other mental/behavioral aspects are being required under regulations involving students with disabilities except it applies to all students in advance. This is how a thugocracy works. I have written a lot about how this administration and the NEA are targeting social and emotional learning as the primary real focus of Common Core. Plus they are implementing UNESCO’s policies on this as well.
And this seeks to alter the mindset of future voters. Many parts of this came in under the Clintons in the 90s. So it is already impacting current voters. Now the Obama/DoED/accreditation push gets at virtually all students in what is called by the statists P-20.
Even for Rio Limbaugh, this is quite outstandin’ly all ‘rong.
The great thing, however, at the moment is to see if we can smuggle our own contraband past the Neothought Police.
Happy days.
That giant sucking sound you hear is wealth fleeing the French Soviet. Despite what the governing class assumes, people aren’t stupid.
Hollande’s latest proposal is to place a tax on foreign owners of homes in France, who are, reportedly already taxed up the wazoo.
Hardest hit, Brits who own a lot of second homes in France.
NYC has taxed Yoga classes.
Wealth (as you say, not stupid) fleeing both places.
Will “they” pass laws to prevent you from moving, from trying to avoid your enslavement to the state ?
Next up, tax on breathing as a function of your (state measured) lung capacity.
“Hollande’s latest proposal is to place a tax on foreign owners of homes in France, who are, reportedly already taxed up the wazoo.”
NO, they for the most didn’t pay taxes at all, as their fiscal home is UK
except those that live yearly in France
Anyway the taxe will concern those that make money with their 2nd holiday home in France, while lending it to other vacationners, or making bonuses while reselling them
““La nouvelle taxe est destinée à compenser en petite partie (176 millions d’euros en 2012) le manque à gagner attendu en 2012 du nouveau barème de l’ISF (évalué à 1,857 milliards d’euros). Pour justifier cette taxe, le ministère des Finances souligne “qu’être propriétaire d’une ou plusieurs résidences secondaires induit, directement ou indirectement, le bénéfice de services publics locaux et nationaux (police et gendarmerie, justice, infrastructures nationales)”. Or, “ces personnes ne contribuent pas par le biais d’impositions directes perçues au profit de l’Etat au financement des services publics nationaux”, ajoute-t-il. La taxe, calculée au taux de 20%, s’appliquerait sur la valeur locative du bien immobilier”
-http://trends.levif.be/economie/belga-economie/la-france-envisage-de-taxer-les-residences-secondaires-des-etrangers/article-1195009322990.htm
the only ones that complain are the agencies and the “rich” owners of buildings, not the average Brit that finds it normal
http://www.lefigaro.fr/impots/2012/07/05/05003-20120705ARTFIG00541-hausses-d-impots-les-anglais-de-france-peu-inquiets.php
Are you really saying that there are no local government or property taxes in France to capture this? The wealth tax is so high that it is really a statement that folks of a certain means are not welcome in France. It was Cardinal richelieu who said that taxation is like plucking a goose: the trick is to get the most feathers with the least hissing. He was wrong (private property is not for the benefit of the king elected or not), but this measure may well fail by even the cynical standard of la rise eminence.
Thomas Sowell called it fascism.
The Fascist Party in Italy was founded by Benito Mussolini, leader of the Italian Socialist Party and editor of its newspaper Avanti. According to Marxist doctrine, war was between capitalists and socialists should oppose it. Mussolini did so, opposing Italy’s fighting in World War I against Germany, until 1917, when he supported Italy’s participation in the war. He opposed the doctrine of “international socialism,” and invented instead, “national socialism.” That was the Fascist Party, national socialism (which Adolf Hitler in Germany adopted, the acronym “NAZI” standing for “National Socialismus.” So Fascism is a form of anti-democratic socialism, as was communism in the Soviet Union.
Socialism is the view that the state should control the economy, that Government is God, and it is anti-liberty.
There was an old joke going around in DC many years ago that went, “What’s the biggest difference between liberals and fascists? Liberals don’t wear jackboots.”
You can explain it to Mr. Sowell, an eminent economist who has written and taught economics extensively.
Socialist or Fascist?
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist
“Organizations like the Progressive Policy Institute have been pushed aside by “a new wave of more left-wing think tanks and organizations.” Mead does not name them, but he is referring to ones like the Center for American Progress and the Institute for Policy Studies, both of which have released position papers urging Obama to bypass Congress and to rule by executive fiat.”
I have often thought that the Obama administration is what you get when the American people just don’t care anymore. They’ve become tired of the screaming, the political fighting, the broken promises, the coverups, the scandals, and the mainstream media pushing the idea that the presidency is “just too big for any one person” (sure, they said the same thing during the Carter administration). People get worn down by all of this and start to tune out, worried more about whether or not they’ll have a job tomorrow or if they can afford the rising costs of food and gasoline. Unfortunately, they never really seem to get the correlation between a lousy economy and the guy sitting in the White House until about one week before the election (as they did with Carter in 1980, when Reagan won in a landslide).
But people point to the Tea Parties and the activism that took place in 2010, poiting to the major upsets that took place during the midterm elections. But others would say, “So what?” What was it that we actually “won?” Was it the victory of Obamacare in a thoroughly broken Supreme Court? Was it the “Fast and Furuious” coverup where Congress is impotent to do anything against a sitting Attorney General who outright lied to Congress? Or maybe it was seeing all those “Green Energy” companies going bankrupt using OUR money? Some would say, if THIS was the end result of the victory of 2010, I’d hate to see what defeat looks like.
And another thing that makes people feel helpless is seeing what’s being done with our Constitution. I’m no Constitutional scholar, but where in the Constitution does it say that health care is a basic human right? Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress, which is supposed to respond to the will of the people, can pass a major piece of legislation like Obamacare WITHOUT the consent of the people? Where in the Constitution does it say that the president can appoint as many “czars” as he wants to, “czars” that are accountable to no one, without Congress saying anything about it (especially when Congress is too gutless to pull the funding for these people)? Where does it say in the Constitution that the president can bypass Congress to fight an entire war, as in Libya, without the consent of Congress? And where in the Constitution does it say that a president can simply bypass Congress and simply enact law on his own, as with Obama’s declaration on the immigration status of an entire class of people in this country?
People see this and start to get beaten down. They actually start to think that the president HAS these powers under the Constitution and begin to accept them. And when you have a Congress that is gridlocked over just about everything, people logically think that the president should have these powers just to get anything of substance done in Washington. And THAT is when you lose the battle for independence and end up with an imperial president, like the one we have now.
I used to never like people like Glenn Beck too much. Their constant stream of gloom and doom would demoralize even the strongest of people. But the one thing that Beck did where he should get a medal is trying to tell the American people what the Founding Fathers were all about, what they actually said, what they actually stood for, and what is actually IN the Constitution. He has raised awareness about the Constitution to levels never seen before and was almost siglehandedly responsible for the major rise of the Tea Parties, an awesome political force that scored major victories in 2010 and, even more recently, with Scott Walker in Wisconsin. And Beck always says that we have to fight this political battle if we are going to salvage what is left of our torn and tattered Constitution.
Well, he’s right, because the alternative is that we give up and end up like the socialists in Greece, and we all see how well that’s turning out. The Constitutionalists out there among us have to take the “long view” in this political struggle. Liberals didn’t just “happen” overnight. It took them about 100 years to end up with a president like Obama, who was and still is willing to trash the Constitution to advance his far-left socialist agenda. I’m sure many of the people who voted for him in 2008 didn’t expect this, but here is where we are. Are we as a nation going to do anything about it, or are we going to end up like Great Britain, a very weak power now only a mere shadow of its former self thanks to socialism?
I have great hope for the American people, I really do. Americans were never quitters and they never were that lazy that they would simply demand that government take care of all of their needs while not thinking about how many of their individual rights they would lose in the process. And Americans also know that whatever government “gives” you, it can certainly take away, as the people in Greece and Spain are seeing right now. We want a better tomorrow and we sure as heck are not going to get it with socialism. After all, if socialism was so great, the Soviet Union would still be here and the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) countries in Europe would be flush with cash right now. Americans are smarter than that and the elections of 2010 proved it. Time to prove it again in 2012.
Yours is probably the best post I’ve read in years. You are so, so right on every point. Especially your observations about the people being “beaten down”. It is exactly how many feel. Hopeless and frustrated. I fear Obama winning in November. He should have been impeached long ago, but with a democratic senate, it would have never happened. People MUST understand what voting for another 4 years of Obama MEANS. Many just don’t have a damn, but I pray that many MORE do care and will vote for Romney and get a Republican majority in the senate. We have to keep fighting against Obama and all those like him.
Good post. I hope, in November, there are 75,000,000 other people who feel the same way. ABO2012
Why quibble, let’s just call them what they are – Totalitarians. The Left uses the terms socialist, communist, fascist, progressive and liberal to mask their intention of totalitarian and dictatorial policies. You can “speak truth to power” if so speaking will increase the power of the State. You can scream “power to the people” if that increases the power of the State. You can promote “diversity” if that eliminates any dissenting views. What you can’t do is allow The People to make their own choices or live their own lives. The peasants must be controlled!
I agree. The same general group of people, with shifting names, following whatever fashionable thought will allow them to take control of any aspect of daily life from those of us who are not paying attention. Totalitarians.
They are unreachable. The people we need to reach are the honestly misinformed, who believe the misinformation, selective information, half-truths, and lies being peddled to them.
Today, socialism means that everything under the sun is a “right”.
Healthcare is a right, education is a right, housing is a right, even travel is a right…
Rights don’t reference God given, inalienable absolutes, but each and every individual’s access to specific, free stuff.
(The fact that the stuff is not at all free (not to mention sustainable) and represents enslavement and trammeling of the highest in man’s spirit is lost on the socialists.)
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, “Make us your slaves, but feed us.”
~Dosteovsky’s Grand Inquisitor
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
~Thomas Jefferson
There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism — by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
~Ayn Rand, LA Times, 9/2/62
A communist is a socialist with your gun.
Socialism works great until they run out of our money….Don’t let the bastards take your gun, Ward! But, I’ve got an extra if you need another one.
“What does it mean to be a Socialist these days, anyway?”
Ultimately to be a Socialist is to be a Marxist because the core idea within Socialism is found within Marx’s Manifesto.
“The proletariat [lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled, government-dependents] will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital [property] from the bourgeoisie [laboring, tax-paying middle class], to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state [self-serving Marxist Government]… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” Karl Marx
To be a Socialist is to either be a self-serving Marxist controller or a government-dependent prole who is under their control.
“There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom. So it was that a [Socialist] revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The [Socialist] revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A [Constitutional] government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them.” Garet Garrett
At the end of our Marxist counter-revolution the middle class will be extinguished through the burden of excessive taxation, leaving only two classes. Just as things were in old Europe, there will be Masters (formerly called Kings and Princes – now called Marxists or Socialists), and there will be slaves (formerly called serfs – now called proles).
Socialism results when control freaks self-organize.
Outstanding essay, Ron. It hits several points squarely on the head.
I would like to add just a couple of items of my own.
1)American Socialism is of the Fabian variety. It hides behind a cloak of populism, disguises its true intentions, denies that it is doing precisely what it has intended all along, lies, cheats, circumvents, distorts.
2)NONE of these behaviors would be tolerated by the American mass communication outlets, if they were performed or undertaken by ANY other party except a radical leftist one.
3)Therefore, it is conspiratorial in nature, abusive in implementation, corrupt in extremis, and dishonest at its core.
Without a corrupt, conspiratorial, deceitful and diseased mass media partner, American Fabian Socialism (Bill Ayers labels it small c communism) would be completely impossible to maintain. It is the BIG LIE and coverup that is the engine, the distortions and circumventions of the Constitution that are the fuel and inability to self-govern this land of ours due to enforced ignorance and deception that are the wheels that grind our people beneath them.
In France, they willingly act like fools and mirror Greece in the road to ruin.
In America, we don’t get the choice to make such an idiotic decision. We can’t give informed consent to the operation that kills our country, because we have been anesthetized with a conspiratorial and treasonous pack of lies covering up the overthrow.
Therein, lies all the difference.
“….we have been anesthetized with a conspiratorial and treasonous pack of lies covering up the overthrow.”
If so many among us were not dishonest & corrupt (great point, Jim Baker), they could not have managed to accomplish what you describe so well above, CFB. An honest, law-abiding, Constitution-following society would hardly fall prey to all of this.
We are witnessing the fruition of the destruction of traditional America. This destruction is the result of a deliberate operation that was designed to destroy America’s unique self-reliant, rugged individualist culture.
Sitting around and debating whether or not the results of the destruction are more nearly socialism, or communism, or marxism, or fascism is almost as destructive as the operation itself.
The root of this evil was planted by the genius covert action operator, Willi Muenzenberg, at the behest of Vladimir Lenin, beginning in the early 1920s. Remember the Sacco and Vanzetti trial and propaganda coup for the communists? That was Muenzenberg’s first operation in the US.
He quickly honed his operation to a fine point. His message, inserted via his Willing Accomplices in American media, education/academia, and Hollywood was: “America is a racist, sexist, xenophobic, imperialist, capitalist hell-hole. And it must be changed.”
Add to that the aura of cool that Muenzenberg infused into the groups that pushed his operations, and you have today’s Politically Correct Progressives.
Everything that PC-Progressives do, think, and believe, from Obama’s destruction of our medical system, to Michael Moore’s destruction of Detroit, to your kids’ teachers’ destruction of American history, is a direct result of this 80 year old operation.
Only when we conservatives can understand the foundations of our opponents mis-guided belief system can we effectively counter their efforts to destroy normal-America.
Details: http://www.willingaccomplices.com
Socialism is a big part of the con. No matter what you call it, it’s misdirection.
The REAL problem is statism, and specifically, the unprecedented massive size of the US government. The opportunity to wallow in trillions of taxpayer dollars is impossible to resist for people who don’t want to earn their own keep. Our government is fllled with criminals, large scale and small scale, who live the good life at your expense. They are attracted to the federal governemnt like bees to honey.
Socialism, marxism, et al has been the preferred honeypot of the vultures for hundreds of years…because it sounds so darned great to so many people, particular the ones who are attracted to petty crime themselves, the ones who don’t want to work for a living. Today, we call them Democrats.
Don’t kid yourself. Our criminal political class doesn’t care one iota about socialism, capitalism, federalism or any other political philosophy. Oh sure, there are a few (very few) theorists who care, maybe…but they aren’t in politics. People go into politics to get rich and wield power. Period. Most of them are criminals beyond what a normal person can imagine.
The difference between obama and Romney is that obama is a criminal who wouldn’t mind cutting your heart out and stomping on it, just like every other marxist. Romney prefers the type of crime where nobody gets too sweaty. The other big difference is that Romney doesn’t hate the US or business. But they are both Socialist con men.
The great moral equivalence argument from another Obama troll. Get out of here, weo. Your constant trashing of the only hope to beat a Communist pretty much reveals what you really are. I wish there was time to teach you a little bit about the fallacies of collectivist ideals, but I don’t have that time. So, in brief, just shut the hell up, weo. ABO2012
Socialism is Communism’s training wheels …
The socialist parties in Europe and the NDP are social democratic parties not socialists. Social democrats like myself believe that social services are an integral part of society and encourage workplace democracy. Democrats are social democrats in any way some may be but a vast majority are not. The Democratic Party platform itself on the international spectrum is still a conservative party with Republicans ending up at far-right. Socialism is a political ideology that is supposed to be a steeping stone to communism by letting the means of productions being owned by the workers.
About six months ago on Hannity, Bob Beckel sneered and snarled at another guest that it was “ridiculous” to call Obama and the Democrats socialists, and that if he had 2 minutes he could give her a lesson on how democratic policies were not socialist. The gal backed down, without challenge. Hannity smirked and shuffled his papers, congratulating himself on a debate well managed. The program then cut to a commercial.
This is a concrete example of how Fox is not the one conservative TV channel. It’s a RINO channel, one that now openly endorses Prez Barack Hussein’s “challenger” Mitt Romney, every bit as much a RINO as Dubya.
Socialism here is very statist.
Of course the Democratic Party is a socialist party, and of course the Republicans are RINOs in charge of a faux opposition party that leaves the nation without a vehicle to defend freedom, liberty, prosperity and law.
Socialism is inherently statist; freedom is the open admission that a state, like chemotherapy for cancer, is indeed necessary, but must be vigilantly kept to a minimum, like chemo and radiation therapy. Otherwise freedom dies. This notion has been lost for decades. Too bad, cuz the answer is rat there in the U.S. Constitution.
What a peculiar reading of Levy’s quote. He says that French Socialist are not really socialists, they are more like American Democrats. How does that become “American Democrats are Socialists”? All of this had-wringing is over the top. Obama is nothing more or less than an ineffective centerist. His policies in many cases are simply rehashed conservative policies, poorly implemented. Compare him to the socialist Richard Nixon (in both policy and corruption) and you’ll see little difference.
Finally someone gets it.
If Obama is a centrist, I sure don’t want to see what a real leftist would look like. I say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck, it is probably a duck. What do you need to find out about this man before you will believe that he is a hard core Socialist? Sheesh. Stop the prevaricating.
The answer to Obama, the Femocrats, and statism is federalism. If we elect strong conservatives to governorships and state legislatures who will retake the powers usurped by the federal government we can stop the slide toward socialism.
The 10th Amendment is our safeguard. Exercise it. http://www.redstate.com/derkrieger/
Just finished reading Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, and the Divider-in-Chief is a tyrant. (Hayek should be read in high school.)
Obama is not all that of an original thinker, but, he and his drones are excellent at repackaging the old corrosions of liberty for the new co-operative of central planning and power.
The American Revolution never actually ended. Many are those who wanted to stay with England and the securities of European divine rights of monarchs. That war is perpetual to today, and perilous until the culture of superior humans, Hollywood stars, big bureaucrats,nanny state is entirely crushed. Men do not need to worship other men.
Socialists are envious of God the Heavenly King, and desire the worship of other men. Socialists are envious of the old Kings of Europe; they desire to be worshiped as Earthly gods – Philosopher Kings – Big Brother – the Priests of Power.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others… We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we’re doing… Power is not a means, it is an end… The object of power is power… Always there will be the intoxication of power… We are the Priests of Power… The real power; the power we have to fight for night and day is not power over things but over men… Power is power over human beings, over the body; but above all over the mind… There will be no loyalty except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love except the love of Big Brother.” George Orwell – 1984
An excellent piece that nails down the way in which old-fashioned socialism has evolved into social democracy. By any fair analysis, Obama certainly fits the mold.
To this, I would add that the intelligentsia has been seduced by the social-democratic to the extent that it is a default norm. I have been amazed by the way in which even a usually intelligent commentator like David Brooks routinely refers to the President as a “moderate.” (And even more by the way in which so many NYT readers who write letters to the editor take him for a heartless reactionary.)
In response to a couple of the commenters on this column, Keynes, whatever we call him, was not a “socialist.” He saw himself as a pragmatist, open to some state intervention and social programs. But he was very much a practicing capitalist himself with a business life as the chairman of an insurance company and an often daring speculator in currencies and commodities. He believed that FDR’s attitude toward the business and financial communities had gotten in the way of economic recovery.
And while we wring our hands over Obama’s Socialist tendacies, he and the rest of his Politburo are working diligently on eliminating the voice of their opposition. We will be required to enlist our military to throw the son of a bitch out even if we defeat him in a landslide. And, our military will fail at protecting one of the two things they are supposed to do for us, our Constitution. We are already living in a completely Socialist state. Obama is the tyrant who would turn it into a totalitarian State. He is succeeding beyond the wildest dreams of his father, as it were. Soon, the government will be raising our children from their birth. And the Democrat Party of useful idiots will either continue to go along with the program or they will perish along with me and you and the rest of Obama’s enemies. This deal is already deadly serious. ABO2012
“We will be required to enlist our military to throw the son of a bitch out even if we defeat him in a landslide.”
You’ve found your audience, Ron.
I’m not sure Either “Socialist” or “Capitalist” are appropriate in the 21st century. Both are 19th century words that have been trampled by 20th century events. The fact that both terms co-exist today would have made a 19th century PoliSci freak fall down, foaming down at the mouth. Today it would be more accurate to see what the balance was between state control and individual control. I say ‘control’ because the original PoliSci types based their theories on ownership and nobody really owns anything now-a-days, except possibly your gym shoes.
The State uses regulations to control things, while private citizens use stocks and persuasion. Stocks work better. So words like capitalism or Socialism are actually measurements of the division of economic control. So socialism actually means more then 50% of the economy is controlled by regulations (regulators). Capitalism means more then 50% of the US economy is controlled by citizens.
I think profit should be the metric used to determine that 50%. Some would pick workers, others resources. Not sure it matters, so long as we all use the same metric.
Socialism is the triumph of the least productive members of society over the most productive.
“Socialism here is very statist” seems an extremely strange pleonastic judgment. But one has to keep in mind that the French right is statist too, so what the French editor means is that the French left is even more so. And in fact that is exactly what we can read in the New York Times article: ““Socialism here is very statist,” says Marc-Olivier Padis, editor of the quarterly journal Esprit. The leading figures in the Socialist government are more creatures of the French establishment — elite schools and careers — than those under Mr. Sarkozy, he explained, “a combination reproducing the profile of Hollande himself.” Mr. Sarkozy was more of an outlier than Mr. Hollande, and much closer to business.” This is absolutely correct.
Parsing over semantics and debating what the chemnical formula or recipe of socialism is, as if there are fixed ingredienst which must be added in the right proportions, seems irrelevent. I’m reminded of the scene in “The Exorcist”
Father Damien: “The demon assumes several personalities. There appear to be three main ones. Would you like me to explain what the main manifestations and
attributes of each…”
Father Merrin: “There is only one”
Touching to see the Ol’ Commie fretting about the “hides of the wealthy.” But I sympathize. After all, the top 10% of Americans only own 2/3 of the nation’s wealth. Maybe 3/4 would satisfy them? OK, OK – 4/5, but that’s my final offer!
And you gotta love how The Historian cites a single individual – Bernard-Henri Levy in this case – as if it proved his point: “Levy, in making that comparison, has let the cat out of the bag.”
But then Radosh himself let’s the cat out of the bag: “Just as Mr. Hollande wants to hire more teachers, raise the minimum wage, and create a state bank, the Obama administration is seeking to….”
WHAT – hire more teachers??? Sacre bleu! But at least RR has now finally touched on the Romney agenda. Who can forget Mitt’s rant against “more firemen, more policemen, more teachers”?
Funny how amidst all the scare tactics aimed at Obama, so little is said about what Romney intends to do. The Candidate tosses out promises like he’s free-associating – $2 gas, a job for every college grad – and my favorite: He’ll replace Obamacare (aka Romneycare) with a system that will care for those with pre-existing conditions. (Without pauperizing them, so they’re eligible for Medicaid? But the GOP is against expanding Medicaid!) I can’t wait to hear the details!
It doesn’t matter what you assert that Romney will do, as if you know. It only matters what Obama is doing, and all of us know that. the election is about what Obama is doing, not about what we imagine his opponent wants to do. Don’t talk about wealth either, bozo. You don’t know a damned thing about that either. Now go back to your hole in the Obama online troll campaign and tell them you need afew more trolls to try to turn the dialog on this website! Get out of here, you Communist shill, and decide that your country is more important than the Democrat Party before you come back. I am sick and tired of collectivist claptrap from sheeple like you. ABO2012
“Get out of here, you Communist shill…..”
Hey, gimme a break, Jim. It took three days before I found the PJM censors napping and got to post my comment (only the Party Line for those guys). So let me enjoy my moment without your assholerie.
If it takes your venting on this site to make you feel like a big man Patriot (funny choice of moniker), so be it. All you accomplish is showing everyone your ignorance and hate. It must be really sad to be you, but that’s your problem. I bet you’ll just be ecstatic when your Dear Leader loses by the largest margin in history. If Obama wants to truly be “historic”, maybe he can make history by becoming the first U.S. president to go to prison….nah, his blackness (half-black anyway) will keep him out of jail. Have a good day, Buddy!
It just gets crazier and crazier. These guys make the Birchers look like Rockefeller Republicans.
Whatever, Patriot493. Just go back to the Obama ditch. I have reached the point where I can’t even stand to try to communicate with you collectivist fools. Tell me, what exactly is a “collective conscience” or “social justice” or “giving back to the community” or “the fair share you think the rich must pay” or “global warming” or “social diversity”? Try hard now, Patriot. You believe in a bunch of nice sounding and totally meaningless slogans and you haven’t even asked yourself why. You aren’t even prepared for what you have coming to you soon, boy. Obama isn’t prepared either and THAT is my problem as well as yours, buster! ABO2012
“Just as Mr. Hollande wants to hire more teachers”
except that’s a rethorical discourse, he doesn’t really have the choice, baby-boomers are retiring
I’m reminded that in 1940, the six-time candidate for POTUS on the Socialist Party ticket declared that he would not run again, since the Democrats had adopted the entire Socialist Party platform.
“I have reached the point where I can’t even stand to try to communicate with you collectivist fools.”
Gee, Jim, I’m sorry to hear that; gonna miss you. As for me, It’s entertainment (in small doses) just seeing how absolutely nuts you wingnuts have become. Alas, except on RR’s blog (sometimes), I’m prevented from commenting. And when I do, as with the piece on the socialite who gave up her citizenship, I’m prevented from answering responses to my comment. PJM is certainly one of the most chickenshit sites in the Wackosphere.
Exactly the unsupported name calling response I expected from you. You will be entertained until you get old and actually need medical help. And don’t try saving your money for that eventuality either. Your government will steal your stash by printing money backed by no wealth and by holding down the interest rates you get on it by government fiat, making your stash completely worthless when compared against what you had to do to save it. You will vote for the government to take ownership of your own property, because you think “social justice” is something that sounds real good to you and because the government knows better than you how to be good stewards of the environment and you don’t. You will be nearly destitute and totally dependent on a 1/320,000,000 share of what our benevolent dictator in Washington will decide you deserve to have under the ever changing guidelines of “social justice”. And by the time you realize you don’t get much of anything, you will be standing in long lines hoping to get a real potato for yourself and your significant other, as long as that significant other is also worthy of a place in line. You won’t even know what your children will be fed by their legal caretakers from the government. In fact, you may not even be allowed contact with them. And you will still be blind. Now it is time to recommend some reading that should really “entertain” you. Try starting with “The Wealth of Nations”, but don’t stop there. Read some John Locke, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Frederick Hayek, if you think you can. Don’t forget to read “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers and learn how Socialism will enslave you and make you into a useful idiot. Then come back to me about my being a wing nut. And don’t come back until you get over that ridiculous superiority complex that makes you think you are already better informed than all of the rednecks out here in the “Wackosphere”. Sheesh. ABO2012
Law Enforcement Requests to Wireless Carriers Topped 1.3 Million in 2011
http://epic.org/2012/07/law-enforcement-requests-to-wi.html
As a Brit, I would never vote for the labour party (socialist) yet, if I were American, I would probably lean towards democrats.
I think the answer to this paradox is how the party political system works. The simple fact is that the two major parties divide up the electorate based upon a couple of polarizing concepts and then contest for the few in the middle.
Basically, they will say anything their client base wants to hear in order to get power.
Therefore: anarchy is the only way.
“…and he provides the sad example of the deeply flawed and sinking British National Health Service as an example of what he thinks should be adopted as a model elsewhere”.
If the writer – and the quoted spouter of this piece of his article – knew anything at all about the British National Health Service, he would realise that this form of medical cover exists in countries all over the world, not just in the United Kingdom where people who do not have the financial clout to afford to pay the exorbitant costs of private medical care are protected by the State and its citizens. The “State”, as practically demonstrated by Government; The “citizens” as demonstrated by those who pay taxes and can afford to pay into the UK National Insurance fund – which pays for our health care – both wealthy and not. He would also realise that our British NHS is a precious commodity that UK citizens will not let go of lightly – and will remain whatever the right-wing politicians do to remove it!
Yes, our NHS is in flux just now, but primarily because our current right-wing Government wants it that way: just like your Republican movement in the USA, our Conservative Party is (and at its heart always has been) anti-NHS. But our health service has in its time saved and prolonged the lives of many of our citizens both rich and poor; Socialist, Liberal and Conservative; man, woman and child; those that contribute (the majority) and those that cannot afford to (the poorest minority) still protected by the lack of a fear that says “Can I afford to be sick?” No credit card up front, no need of expensive private medical insurance that speaks of “cost” whatever the price of medication or medical treatment; not being turned away from treatment because we “cannot” afford medical care. “Free at point of need” as we say.
America leads the world in very many ways and has a right to be proud of what it has achieved both as a nation and of its peoples. But sometimes the “American Dream” seems to get in the way of the true democratic objective that it so vociferously boasts of: protecting those within its nation that have not the strength, the health or the wealth to always help themselves. The ones who get left behind in the rush to secure a place in the sun often through no fault of their own. Perhaps that is what President Obama is trying to do – help those that otherwise have no help; correct the faults that we, who are not American, see in the wealthy bulk of the citizens of the United State.