Now we’re just haggling over the price — what kind of socialist is Barack Obama?

[Update a few minutes later]

It’s a long piece, but I thought this a useful excerpt:

The non-hot socialism Hayek was describing often goes by the name of “social democracy,” though it is perhaps best understood as an American variant of Fabianism, the late-Victorian British socialist tendency. “There will never come a moment when we can say ‘now Socialism is established,’” explained Sidney Webb, Britain’s leading Fabian, in 1887. The flaw of Fabianism, and the reason it never became a mass movement on the Left, is that the revolutionary appetite will never be sated by its incrementalist approach. The political virtue of Fabianism is that since “socialism” is always around the corner and has never been fully implemented, it can never be held to blame for the failings of the statist policies that have already been enacted. The cure is always more incremental socialism. And the disease is, always and forever, laissez-faire capitalism. That is why George W. Bush’s tenure is routinely described by Democrats as a period of unfettered capitalism and “market fundamentalism,” even as the size and scope of government massively expanded under Bush’s watch while corporate tax rates remained high and Wall Street was more, not less, regulated.

This is the scam that they’ve been running for decades. Let’s hope that it’s finally coming to an end. The current polls, at least, would indicate that it is.

I would add that in today’s environment, it is not capitalism that is “unfettered” (and it’s been many decades since that was the case, if ever) but, given the rampant disregard for the Consitution, it is government that has no fetters. That’s what the Tea Parties are all about.