Technically speaking, anyway:
I’ve already commented on this issue twice, remarking that Obama technically is a fascist, but that it is much better to call him a statist or corporatist. But there is the tricky issue of whether a word should be defined by experts (to the extent economists are experts on anything) or whether it is more appropriate to accept the common understanding of what a word means. I don’t have a firm opinion on that issue, but if socialism now means someone who believes in lots of government intervention and redistribution, then Obama is a socialist (heck, Bush also would be a socialist). But if we stick with the official definition, which involves government ownership of the means of production, then Obama has relatively few policies that meet that standard.
He does have a Marxist outlook, though (as all true fascists do).
[Update a few minutes later]
Why Obama is failing. Because he lied his way into office:
…we were lied to about this by Obama and the MSM winked. Yet it was a far more significant lie than Clinton’s proclamations about Monica Lewinsky, which only peripherally affected affairs of state and were obviously the desperate acts of a man caught cheating. Obama’s prevarication was about the very essence of his political views. Widely desirous of electing its first black president — I felt this myself but did not act upon it — the nation gulped and swallowed the lie, but, consciously or unconsciously, it did not forget.
Now we are where we are. We have a president that no one wants to listen to because we do not fully believe him. His own party is deserting him not just because they know his ideas are unpopular. They also know he is unable to convince anyone. We have shut him off.
The irony, of course, is that his biggest supporters, who still continue to support him — young people and blacks — are being hurt the most by his policies.
So long as ‘Bama keeps spreadin’ the White Devil’s money ’round, we’ll do a’ite!
What’s the world coming to? You and your fellows are making a lot of headway with my mindset re: the President. Granted, the sheer number of disappointing gaffs and blown opportunities have added up in my mind as well.
The concept of psychopathic personality disorder is beginning to ring true. The Wright debacle bothered me in that a person with serious dreams of the national stage should have been out of there the very first time that Rev. Wright’s rhetoric crossed the line. To stay was dumb, as dumb as having an intern blow you in the White House.
The last President I had any respect for (based on policy) was Bush Senior. We really need a break from the goofballs of the last 20 years. If we could just keep the NASA FY’11 budget and the direction it lays out, I’d vote Repub till the day I die.
I can be convinced, preferably with the truth about the matters at hand, in a reasonably calm tone. Rovian politics had more to do with Obama getting elected that many realize. Keep up the good work, Rand.
“Obama Is Not A ‘Socialist’”
Of course he’s not a socialist – he’s an effing COMMUNIST. 🙁
“The irony, of course, is that his biggest supporters, who still continue to support him — young people and blacks — are being hurt the most by his policies.”
Karma’s a bitch.
A rose by any other name is still a disaster for this country.
@Titus: “So long as ‘Bama keeps spreadin’ the White Devil’s money ’round, we’ll do a’ite!”
Could you please translate that into Standard American English, at least the last word?
Thanks!
Seems it’s not so much that Obama lied but that so many starstruck twits simply did not believe what he plainly and frequently said during his campaign. He was far from a stealth candidate for anyone paying the slightest attention.
a’ite = alright… I believe.
I don’t know where Rand’s first quote came from, but economists weren’t the ones who defined socialism. That would be political theorists, historians, and so on.
Not to mention it’s not too difficult to objectively define socialism, communism, or fascism. Obama is none of these; he’s an old-fashioned Progressive. (sorry, Barbara S)
Bush wasn’t a socialist, either, although he did have a lot in common with JFK-Democrats.
Short form: a socialist would avoid the communist goal of the proletariat owning all means of production, by focusing on the “commanding heights” of the economy. Back in the day that meant heavy industry. I don’t doubt there’s a new list these days. 🙂
Point being that a socialist advocates government ownership & control of the key economic elements of a society. Bush, therefore, is not a socialist. Barry demonstrates some tendencies in that direction, but one has to question whether his administration would have (in effect) taken over GM & Chrysler absent the economic meltdown.
20th-century American liberals -while taking some cues from Progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson- are somewhat less statist. They tend to prefer regulation of corporate excess rather than directly controlling the economy. These liberals even occasionally have nice things to say about free market & free trade.
Progressives, on the other hand, are less focused on ownership (vice socialists), and demonstrate a strong preference to actual control of the economy, as well as heavy regulation of corporations. While liberals are generally content with negative regulation (business can’t discriminate, can’t monopolize, can’t produce dangerous products), progressives go further, and advocate positive regulation. That is, they feel it is not only their right, but their obligation to tell business & manufacturing what do to, and how to do it.
This describes President Barry to a T.
Rand, alas (like others), still insists on equating fascism with something it isn’t; in this case Marxism. On the other hand, I quite agree that Barry probably finds Marxist ideals quite beguiling. 🙂