Referring to the president's policies as socialist, according to liberals, is now akin to saying making racist comments….
HUH?
There has been much discussion about people describing Obama as a socialist; however, much of the angst with liberals seems to originate in the misunderstanding of the term due to the lack of a clear definition of what detractors mean when they say Obama is a socialist.
It is difficult to precisely define socialism because of the many different socialist programs that have been tried during the last century or so.
Generally, socialism refers to an economic and political theory, which advocates cooperation among people and that a nation’s means of production should be controlled by the government for the benefit of its entire people, devoid of a profit incentive to reward the private risk taker that is a basic right in a capitalist system. Most socialist variations do not value private property rights, which is a core principal of capitalism.
When people say that Obama is a socialist or is promoting socialism, most are probably referring to democratic socialist, a variation of socialism, which, according to Wikipedia, “Maintain(s) a commitment to the re-distribution of wealth and power and social ownership of most major industry, and some believe in a planned economy.
The Democratic Socialist of America, say, “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives. Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States.
The website http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/Fleisher/courses/econ508winter06/docs/Democratic_socialism.
pdfCharacteristics, says,"Democratic socialists have normally defended the role of the public sector, particularly as regards the provision of key services such as health care, education, utilities, mass transit, and sometimes also banking, mining, and fuel extraction. For evolutionary democratic socialists, their economic vision has often included a mixed economy with a greater emphasis on worker and consumer co-operatives, credit unions, family farms and small businesses, as compared to authoritarian Marxist-Leninists. In India, democratic socialists have to varying degrees seen the traditional village-based peasant economy as a model to be supported and enhanced.
It is interesting to observe the shocked disbelief and outrage exhibited by supporters when defending Obama from the socialist label, when few can dispute that he advocated the takeover of General Motors, financial institutions, and now proposes the government takeover of the healthcare system.
When one further considers Obama’s role as community organizer, redistributionist tax proposals, his “spread the wealth” comments, his appointment of a self professed socialist green czar, his role with ACORN, and his association with Dr. Jeremiah Wright, who preached black liberation theology for the 20 years that Obama was a member of Wright’s church, it is not surprising nor inaccurate that the term “socialist” comes to mind when describing Obama.
About liberation theology, Wikipedia said, “Anthony Bradley of the Christian Post interprets that the language of "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" as nothing more than channeling the views of Karl Marx. He believes James Cone and Cornel West have worked to incorporate Marxist thought into the black church, forming an ethical framework predicated on a system of oppressor class versus a victim much like Marxism.”
Unable to mount a credible defense of Obama’s socialist labeling by opponents, supporters have resorted to playing the race card by saying that opponents are racists. The charge of racist does not seem to be working and has probably done more damage than the original charge of socialist.
The question arises; what does one call Representative Bernie Sanders, a self professed democratic socialist, if not socialist? Are new media all racists when they refer to Sanders as the only socialist in Congress?
Politics is a rough and tumble sport that I think Obama is tough enough to handle.
Let him stand on his own two, more than capable, feet, which proves that he is equal to anybody, white or black, instead of having whining white liberals labeling him a victim of those meanie racists. It seems that more white liberals are howling in outrage and insisting on victim status for Obama than mainstream African Americans.
Makes one wonder why?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
vzn
ronnierayjenkins
Constantine Shapovalov
Marguerite Arnold
Deborah Young
T.S.
Salon.com
Comments
Almost always heard Sanders referred to as an 'independent.'
"...now proposes the government takeover of the healthcare system"
Wish he would!
Incorrect. Holding racist signs at rallies, forwarding racist emails, disrupting an address with "You lie!" when the disruptor has a history of race-baiting"--these are clear evidence of racism.
Tarring Obama with the "socialist" label is a whole 'nother thing. While it is true liberal Democrats favor a single payer health care system (extending Medicare to the uninsured), Obama has not signed on to that option, so it is hard to call him socialist for that.
Furthermore, his bailouts are an extension of the previous, Republican administration. So, at most he is no more and no less socialist that his predecessor. Where were these people then? Where were they when huge farm subsidies were passed during W.'s first term? Where were they when the massive highway bill was passed? Or the Medicare drug benefit?
All of the above are lies and have nothing to do with being a racist.
Not sure who did it, maybe Rush, but it was ignorant and wrong, no matter who said it. Yes, you are correct. They indeed may be projecting their own prejudices, just like Jimmy Swaggart always preaching about sexual immorality. Same is true with liberals obsessing about racism.
Incorrect. Holding racist signs at rallies, forwarding racist emails, disrupting an address with "You lie!" when the disruptor has a history of race-baiting"--these are clear evidence of racism.
Some of what you describe is clearly racist, outbursts about healthdcare isn't racism.
I'm for calling it out when I see it. Sometimes, I might infer it from past behavior, such as Representative Wilson's past support for the Confederate flag and his past denial of Senator Thurman's daughter's claim. Maybe I'm wrong about Wilson; I don't know the man. But it would be an easy mistake to make, based on his own record.
I grew up in the "deep" East Texas. Racism is systemic and pervasive there. When only whites are in the room, it is not uncommon to hear the "n" word spoken in casual conversation. If you have the time and are so inclinde, google Tulia, Texas, Hearne, Texas, Greenville, Texas, or Jasper, Texas. All are the sites of extreme violence and crimes against black people.
Growing up in such a society, I maintain that it is impossible not to harbor at least some racist feelings. Like being sprayed by a skunk, racism is a stink that stays with you, no matter how hard you try to wash it off.
Just the other day, I received an extraordinarily hateful, racist email forward from a guy I grew up with. I'm thinking about posting it. You think I should?
But none of the opponents of President Obama are racist? It's a convenient observation when you want it, and false when you dont.
First of all, no one said calling him a socialist is racist. But, how about, "America is not ready for a black President". Did you happen to hear that one? Is that racist? The "birther" nonsense, not racist? Have you looked at the data regarding his opposition on almost every question, including his candidacy? While there is opposition everywhere, can you explain how his opposition intensifies as one proceeds Southeast, as one rises in age, and with males. The Southeastern white male is most likely to oppose him. You dont think that has anything to do with race? His opposition mirrors the most racist element in American society over centuries. The poorer, less educated, and whiter, the more vehement level of racial hatred. It is a statistical fact. It applies in this case in all the same directions. And you deny that it is racist? "America is not ready for a black President." What does that mean exactly? Does it mean, you should wear a wool sweater when you travel to Wisconsin? Not racist? Come on.
You and the blogger are being dishonest. Your statement says in essence that "ALL" are being accused. That is false. That may be a feeling led perception, but it is not what is being said. And if it is the best case "feeling led perception", then you are slightly paranoid. The accusation is about "some" not "all". Your statement is as absurd as if someone were to go to a court of law and claim that the state is accusing ALL, and not merely the defendant, therefore the law nor the crime exists. It is an absurd concept, and probably also a blatant and weak attempt to lie and misconstrue. The charge applies to some, and it is valid as such.
Bill, my friend, that is exactly what I am saying. The following is the opening line from a recent column in my local paper, the Tallahassee Democrat.
See : http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20090909/COLUMNIST04/909090304/-1/COLUMNISTS: So know when you call Barack Obama a "socialist," the rest of us are thinking: "There goes a racist."
Because that's what all this is about. There is a segment of the population that simply can't accept a black man was elected president of the United States.
Chris Matthews says the same thing. These white liberal are attempting to intimidate Barach's opponents who are obviously scoring points with the American public against Obamacare. They tried to make him into Jack Kennedy and bring back Camelot, but alas, Obama is but a mere mortal it turns out after all....and its killing the liberals who would like to ride this good man down the road to socialism. Unfortunately for the liberals, most of us are not intimidated so easily because although we each have prejudices, deep down we know that we do not have the hatred of racism in us.
Liberals like Obama may mean well with his collectivist ideas of wealth redistribution, government controlled healthcare. government manipulation of private enterprise-cash for clunkers and takeover of GM, tax the rich give to the poor schemes. high taxes, 10 trillion dollar debt addition, but when he acts like a democratic socialist, we will call him out.