I recently sent my uncle, a hard-line Republican, and the other right-wingers on his email list, a link to a Washington Post opinion column penned by Billy Wharton, the editor of Socialist Magazine.
My original email said this:
“…Dislike the man and his policies all you want, I’m pretty frustrated with some of those policies myself, but can we please stop with tossing the word “socialism” around? It’s just not close to the truth. We are not a socialist nation, we won’t be anytime soon, and Barack Obama is not a socialist..”
accompanied by the link. I got a quick response from one of my uncle’s friends, a gentleman I’ve never met:
“..I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Obama’s words and deeds are that of a socialist. America will turn to socialism if first it is brought to it’s knees and then turn to government to save us. Does that sound familiar?…”
I responded by asking if he’d taken time to read the column and try to see where I was coming from, and this was his next response (emphasis added):
“…I didn’t need to read the article. I have listened to him and I have read parts of his own autobiography. Time always tells the truth. In time we will know the truth, but for now, I seem to have closed my mind til I see time disclosing the results.
God’s blessings to you, the rest is window dressing…”
There’s the problem, in a nutshell, that many of us in the middle/left have a problem with where those on the right are concerned. Basically, this guy said, “why should I read it? I’ve already made up my mind, facts be damned.”
I’ll give the dude credit for one thing…he admitted his mind was closed. Most of them (you, if you’re with this guy) don’t. But this is what is wrong with our country today. One of the main positives I’ve heard about Barack Obama is his willingness and sometimes desire and need to talk to the other side to see why they think like they do. Wouldn’t it be nice if that was reciprocated once in awhile? Oh, btw, if anyone doubts that this is exactly what the man said, I’ll forward you the email.
7 responses so far ↓
1
Brad Carter
// Apr 3, 2009 at 4:03 pm
First, I read the article.
Next, any over-regulation of the Free Market system is a form of Socialism. This has been going on since Woodrow Wilson’s administration. However, the last 20-30 years has proved to increase these tendencies. Whether the White House has been occupied by a Democrat or Republican, unnecessary regulation has taken place. In most every case (noting only Presidential Executive Orders) Congress, again regardless which party that was in control, has gone along eyes wide open.
I blogged on the Free Market and Capitalism a while back: http://carter4freedom.com/blog/?p=125
To sum up the point though, Capitalism is not to be unregulated. However the only regulations necessary are
1) To prevent force
2) To prevent fraud
3) To prevent monopolies
4) To uphold agreed upon moral standards
That’s it. Any regulating outside these purposes are unnecessary governmental interference, which is a step in the direction of Socialism.
The sad truth is America has been a Socialist country for some time now.
2
Emerge
// Apr 3, 2009 at 11:51 pm
I bet he spends a lot of time listening to the radio.
3
bjstone
// Apr 12, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Brad, I’m soon going to leave a longer response, as obviously I disagree with you. It’s going to be quite a stretch on my part, because I obviously don’t have the smarts to compete at your level, and I’m saying that in all seriousness.
But, let’s take the premise that you are correct and we HAVE been a “socialist nation” for at least some time now. If that’s the case, then you’ll AGREE with me that people need to shut up about Obama being a “socialist” who’s leading this country to “socialism”, and these fear-mongers need to shut the hell up.
Will you agree with me on that? Obviously, if you do, it’s for a different reason than I say, but if you’re right, and we’ve been socialist for awhile, then “they” (Hannity, Limbaugh, and all their mindless drones) need to spew the same venom at the Reaganites and the Bushies and the Clintons, no?
4
bjstone
// Apr 12, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Emerge – You nailed it, I’m sure. I’m guessing this guy I was trying to have a discussion with is a devoted Dittohead, or Hannityass, as I call them. These people think they’re hearing the truth everyday…when sane people realize what those guys…and Levin, Savage, and all the rest…do every day is a big fat lie.
5
postsimian
// Apr 16, 2009 at 1:26 am
Brad, actually it’s been going on since at least Lincoln’s administration. It went on with the Free Silver issue of the 1890’s, in which government intervened on *behalf* of businesses 100% of the time. Theodore Roosevelt (again before Wilson’s administration) was known as the “trust buster.” (something I understand you agree is necessary)
Sorry man, it’s just hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you napalm history like that. Anyway, I’ve got two words for you, which should suffice for why government involvement in the market is necessary: Keynesian economics. If you get into a situation like we’re in where the financial system utterly collapses, the government ends up being the only entity big enough to do anything about it.
The parallels with the Great Depression are staggering. Hell, FDR’s administration closed banks until they were investigated and found to be stable. Just wait until we get to that point. Remember, this was in the 1930’s and 40’s… yet here we are, still a superpower, still a country, still alive. Capitalism is still going strong.
Anyway, regulation in other areas is still necessary. Bush instituted “voluntary regulation” policies, and what do we get? Poisoned children’s toys, one e-coli and salmonella incident after another, along with a financial collapse that has driven the economy into a recession. I’d hate to see what would happen if pharmaceuticals were able to push out drugs, or food industries were able to sell us goods without oversight and regulation from the FDA. We’ve already had a taste of that, and it wasn’t a good flavor.
6
postsimian
// Apr 16, 2009 at 1:27 am
As for the charge of socialism, let’s be real. Our politicians aren’t even leftist, let alone socialist. Marx was a Leftist. Trotsky? Leftist. Lenin? Leftist. Chomsky? Decidedly leftist. Barack Obama? Are you fucking kidding me? If we’re going to use real political philosophies here, let’s put things in their appropriate context. That means no more being nice and referring to wingnuts as “conservatives.” They’re fascists. Obama is a mainstream conservative. If you’re going to invoke socialism, that’s the reality of where the American political context exists. Or, we could go back to pretending the Democrats are “liberal” and the Republicans are “conservative,” then forget we ever had this discussion.
7
Brad Carter
// Apr 21, 2009 at 4:56 pm
BJ,
Sorry it’s been so long for me to make a return visit.
Re: Hannity, Limbaugh, et al -yes, to answer your question.
Hannity likes to say he is a Conservative first and a Republican second, however the truth is he is a Republican first and a Republican second. Especially after each of them supported McCain after they were adamantly against him in the primary because he was so bad for the country.
Everyone else,
SOCIALISM:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
CAPITALISM:
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
source http://www.m-w.com
Because of federal statutes and unnecessary regulations, the state is effectively controlling the decisions that are made at both the corporate and private levels. By the federal government giving certain tax benefits, it is effectively modifying behaviors.
Take the bailouts for example (current and former Administrations – guilty), the government is deciding which businesses fail by only giving money only to those whom it chooses. FYI, the Constitution says that there shall be uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. Not so today!
Or how about ethanol for a larger perspective. In brief: The government pays farmers to plant corn. It also gives grants to build ethanol plants. It further incentivizes ethanol producers by giving them money when the producer hits x amount of gallons (I believe x= 800,000 gal./year). Then the government mandates a blend of 90/10 gas/ethanol at the pumps. It further subsidizes E85 an average $.65/gallon to bring the price closer to regular gasoline to entice consumers to purchase the product. Finally, the government then places an exorbitant tariff on imported ethanol.
Now these two examples must be weighed against the list of necessary regulation stipulations in my previous comment. When viewed through the prisms of the definitions above, clearly America is and has been Socialistic for some time, but neither has it been Capitalistic. (I do not propose to let the lobbyists off the hook for lining the pockets of politicians to change the rules)
You see, I’m not using the word SOCIALISM as a scare tactic. Nor am I using the word CAPITALISM inappropriately. I am using them with their correct definitions. Because I am neither a Democrat or Republican, I am sort of on the outside looking in, and sometimes it is easier to see things in a different perspective. Unlike some radio hosts, I believe I have stayed consistent in this belief.
I hope this clears some thing up for you.
Leave a Comment