Friday, October 16, 2009

Analyzing Barack Obama's Nicknames

Barack Obama has been called many, many names since he took office. Oh, wait, I forgot to include his middle name--Hussein--because, as we all know, if you share the same name with someone you clearly possess all of their other traits too.

Over the next few days, I'll try to break down these various names, in the hopes that we can move beyond ad hominem fallacies and actually discuss some serious issues.

Where to begin?

How about "socialist"? Is Obama a "socialist"? In a word, no. The vast majority of folks who call Obama a "socialist" or a "communist" or a "Marxist," quite frankly, have no idea what they're talking about. And, if they do know what they're talking about, then they're intentionally trying to deceive others because they know that "socialist" invokes an automatic negative image. Many people can't explain socialism, but they sure as hell know it's evil!

Socialism, like democracy, I suppose, is a somewhat slippery term. What on Earth does it mean? The most common agreeable trait is that socialism means the people who physically create the wealth (labor; the working class) also own the means of production. I don't see that happening at all. What Rush Limbaugh means by "socialism" and what "socialism" actually is, like most things Limbaugh defines, are completely different.

Thus, if anything, Obama is a hyper-capitalist because he has done just about everything in his power to PRESERVE CAPITALISM. Under Bush first (TARP was under Bush), and continued under Obama, our government has done everything to ensure that global capitalism survives, not perishes.

No society is purely "democratic" or purely "socialist" either, in reality. It's just not that simple.

Let's consider whether or not the U.S. is socialist. In total, the U.S. government holds some kind of stake now in .21% (That's ONE-FIFTH of one percent!) of corporations. And, as Obama has repeated again and again, he has "no interest" in owning GM. Simply giving money to a corporation is not socialism. Citizens could be angry about this for other reasons, to be sure, but not because it's "socialist."

Let's also use health care as an example. A socialist would abolish private for-profit hospitals, consider all health care professionals employees of the state (everyone would be employed by the state, I suppose), and, of course, would rid our nation of insurance companies. Obama has proposed none of that. Again, if anything, Obama is the epitomy of a capitalist: he wants insurance companies to stay in existence and has not been a very strong advocate by any sense of any kind of "public option" (similar to Medicare.) Even if a public option does pass, I doubt it will have an impact on for-profit health insurance. Most people will still be insured through their employer, and won't have any choice at all. (I thought capitalism was all about choices and a "free market". We don't have that.)

Irony alert! Alaska, under Sarah Palin, most closely resembled a "socialist" state. Alaskans receive nearly $14,000 per capita, far more than most states, meaning, the rest of us subsidize Alaska and its inhabitants. Moreover, Alaskans receive $3,000 a year from OIL COMPANIES. When pushed on this, Palin responded, and I QUOTE: Alaska is "set up, unlike other states in the union, where collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

Hmmm....sounds like socialism to me, and far moreso than anything I've heard Obama suggest.

In the final analysis, Obama is strongly capitalistic, and certainly no socialist.

Perhaps a few days from now, we'll consider whether or not Obama is a "Nazi."

1 comment:

  1. TARP was wrong, GM takeover is wrong, bank take over is wrong, this health care reform is wrong, printing money is wrong.

    The free markets needs to be free. There are winners and losers but competition is what creates quality and innovation. GM wouldn't have existed had Henry Ford's model t and the assembly line not bankrupted William Durant's carriage business.

    If the government takes over health care, your right to choose will become more and more limited. The gov will have to use your insurance coverage to tell you what you can eat, drink, drive, live etc because they will think this will keep the cost to the gov down. Leave health care reform to the free market by allowing health insurance to be sold from state to state creating competition. If people think their health care is "free" they will start going to the doctor for hang nails, check out what happened in the years following the passage of Medicare and Medicaid.

    The money that has been printed this year is more than 100% of our gross domestic product. We printed more than we can earn. Carter did this in the '70's by about 13% which caused the bank to increase their interest rates. I lived through the '70's and it was a dark time. We're repeating the mistakes of the past.

    ReplyDelete