Go ahead, call Obama a Socialist

David Frum wants to make the case on why conservatives ought not to refer to Obama as a socialist. Though he seems to define socialism in much the same way as others using it, he doesn’t seem to know who its practitioners are. His fear seems to be of muddying the political waters when really it ought to be of clearing them. He claims conservatives are railing against the wrong thing, but his case is weak because it stands on a nonexistent comparison.

Full article after the jump »

Read the Frum Forum article »

Comments

  1. Solomon KleinsmithAugust 12, 2010 at 2:45 PM

    There is a pretty big difference between social welfare programs and socialism. Overlap with socialism is certainly there, and certainly more than the overlap with the GOP, which is also there... even among the Tea Party... but socialism is a wide ranging economic system that includes government ownership of much of industry, not just bail outs, single payer type health care, not subsidized. Its just more accurate to say he's liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. tryanmaxAugust 16, 2010 at 10:34 AM

    I chose a poor title for this article. I wanted to point out that Frum’s argument against calling Obama a socialist doesn’t address whether or not the label is appropriate. Those who usually claim Obama to be a socialist tend to compare his autobiographies and speeches to his policies, looking for expressions of socialist philosophy. Those with a counter-claim tent to lean against textbook definitions (which Frum puts aside) and expound on how Obama hasn’t lived up to them so far. In a sense, the two sides are looking in opposite directions with their backs to one another.

    However, in Frum’s case, he points out how Obama follows in the footsteps of others who were not called socialists. That’s only saying we’ve never called it that before, so we won’t start now. Now, I’m not saying that Bush or any other prior presidents were socialists. Yet Frum seems to be okay stating that socialist policies have been enacted all along the way by persons and parties that are not expressly socialist. This only makes the case that philosophical identifiers ought to come from without, rather than within.

    I agree that social welfare programs alone are not socialism, at least not fully fledged. Truly, not all income redistribution is socialism. But when the comparison is between socialism and private markets, as is the case in Frum’s article, I have to put it squarely on the socialism side of the ledger.

    I should have named this article “Go ahead, call Obama a Socialist if you want to” because Frum does not do a good job of dissuading it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Real Reason Why Are Trucks Getting Bigger

Image
It's not "ego." It's a claim that you encounter a lot—an insult really—that people are buying bigger and bigger trucks to compensate for… something. Here's one particularly cringeworthy example, because the person making it doesn't seem to realize the go-kart he's praising doesn't meet US emissions standards.  whenever americans say that they *need* a massive pickup truck that gets 12mpg just show them the Subaru Sambar utility vs. ego pic.twitter.com/NqexDbQcok — sam (@sam_d_1995) May 11, 2022 In response, a lot of people will defend their big truck purchase by saying they need a larger vehicle for their family, their business, or just because they like it. And to an extent, market forces are partly responsible for the increase in truck sizes, particularly when it comes to features like crew cabs. But it turns out that even a lot of people who like the big trucks don't know the full story of how their trucks got so big. The rest of the story
Read more

Romney’s Pro-Life Position Not So New

Also: Say hello to the “Sev-Con” There’s a NYTimes article out over the weekend that is all the buzz today. The pull-quote du jour is by former Mitt Romney strategist Mike Murphy, who told National Review in 2005 that Romney "is a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly." The preferred pick-apart is that this proves Romney will say and do anything to get elected. And, I admit, it certainly sounds damning. If nothing less, it was a poor choice of words. But this is old news. At the time Murphy issued a statement saying he had been misquoted. I’d say the facts support Murphy’s side of the story. The Times article tries to make more ado about Romney’s pro-life journey than there is. In 1994, when he ran against Ted Kennedy, he did not shy away from his personal opposition to abortion but positioned himself by saying “my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.” He lost that race. In 2001, Romney e
Read more

The Gaffe that Almost Wasn’t

Image
The smear campaign against Cain continues   By now the internet, radio, television, and wagging tongues everywhere are all abuzz over the latest campaign blunder by Herman Cain. But is it really the gaffe everyone says it is? Or was it a selective editing job a la Ed Shultz ? Well, call me cynical, but I’ve seen enough media shenanigans to be suspicious of anything taken out of context and this definitely tripped my radar. In the clip that has gone viral (below), Cain does appear to be caught off-guard by a question on Libya, a topic he ought to have been ready for. My first reaction was to wonder how many clips like this land on editing room floors instead of online. In a world used to hyper-slick video and equally slick candidates, a moment of thought gathering can seem disastrous. Still, this isn’t about a some candidate’s “senior moment.” Rather, it is about a hatchet job gone awry. This clip was released by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel along with the entire half-hour interview
Read more