Unfortunately I stumbled upon this gem by Alan Blinder, which is either satirical journalism at its best or just another delusional leftist rant. His purpose is to challenge the purportedly mouth-breathing notion that Obama is socialist.
Considering an objective summary of Obama’s words, positions, history and actions, how anyone could question this fact is perplexing.
Ever since President Barack Obama released the budget last month, we have been hearing a fusillade of criticism claiming that the president, contrary to previous advertising, is not a centrist, but a “leftie” intent on leading the country down the path of socialism.
Let’s see. Socialism means public ownership and control of businesses, right? So which industries does the president propose to nationalize?
The short answer is all of them - I would venture to guess. But, he’s smart enough to know that such a transition cannot be thrown on the country in one fell swoop, so he’ll push just up to the point of chaos, back-peddle a bit, reposition, repeat. This is the standard tactic of prudency for aspiring tyrants.
Right off the bat we see Mr. Blinders obtuse definition of Socialism which he seems to be using in an extremely narrow sense. Are we to assume that by his standard a nation that is fully Socialized save one Grocery store in some American town is not Socialist?
A more accurate gauge is to evaluate the extent that a nation considers individual rights as sacred pillars of freedom.
Socialism is the sacrifice of the individual to the collective. To the extent that such notion is a nation’s guiding premise, that country is Socialized. No, America isn’t fully Socialized. And no, Obama hasn’t yet prescribed full Socialization, but the very nature of such a society is recursive and self-perpetuating. Controls breed controls - and once the the footing is compromised, the path is downhill unless the fundamental philosophical thrust of the nation is altered.
Banking? Well, no. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner has made it clear that he opposes nationalizing banks, despite much outcry from the political left — and even some from the right — to do just that.
Again, no - banks aren’t fully nationalized, but the wedge is well in place. This, and the most recent administration have redistributed looted wealth in the form of subsidies to corporations. The subsidies came with invasive stipulations. The subsidies weren’t optional, but mandatory. Even if a slave owner limits his restrictive tenets to only a few prohibitions, he’s still in control.
What about health care? Doesn’t Mr. Obama want “socialized medicine”? No. He wants to reform the current system so that it costs less and covers more people. Disgracefully, the United States is the only advanced nation in the world that fails to cover every citizen — even though we spend vastly more on health care than other nations.
Some reformers want the U.S. to adopt a single-payer system like other countries, such as “socialist” Canada and England — which run firmly capitalist economies, by the way. But regardless of whether single-payer is a good idea, it’s not Mr. Obama’s. His health-insurance reform plan emphasizes choice (keeping what you have if you like it), greater efficiency (partly by utilizing information technology), and portability (your health coverage will follow you from job to job). Which part of that is socialist?
Exactly how can he reform it without violating the rights of all parties involved? What’s disgraceful is that America has sunk into the altruist-collectivist abyss so far as to condone and prescribe threatening one man’s life to support another - by force. And exactly why do you think we spend more? Because we’re already subsidizing the parasites in this country who won’t support themselves. Doing so on a wider and more explicit scale will only drive costs up and value down, not to mention the crippling effect that nationalization will have on the competitive and creative forces of innovation. To the extent that a man is rational, he will not work under compulsion.
As far as England and Canada (or any country in the world) being Capitalist, surely you jest Mr. Blinder?
As the law now stands, when a family that does not itemize deductions on its tax return donates $100 to its favorite charity, the donation costs the family $100. But when an itemizing family in the 25% bracket donates $100, it costs them only $75 after tax. And when an itemizer in the 35% bracket donates $100, the after-tax cost is only $65. Thus the richer you are, the less it costs. Is it socialistic to say that seems a little backwards?
Not necessarily socialist, but it’s preposterous to imply that an individual who diligently complies and attempts to wrangle our nightmarish tax code shouldn’t be rewarded. This is the same line of thought that claims it’s an injustice for an individual who doesn’t pay taxes to not get a tax refund.
So where does all this leave us on the road to socialism? If Mr. Obama is able to get all of these proposals through Congress, the U.S. will have a fully private banking system, propped up with temporary government support; a uniquely American health-care system that covers virtually everyone; and a somewhat more progressive income tax.
If this is socialism, then let’s make the most of it.
Fully private eh? Except for thousands of pages of regulations, a mandatory phony currency, and that pesky Federal Reserve pulling the strings that drive the whole show. Temporary huh? Would that be “income tax” temporary, or “public education” temporary? Uniquely American? Except that it’s rooted in the same poisonous altruist-collective nonsense that leads every subscribing country to stagnant mediocrity, poverty and ultimately destruction. Our particular blend of the freedom/statism concoction may be non-essentially unique, but the course will lead to the only possible destination - misery.
Mr. Blinder, if you prefer not to call our president a Socialist, how about this? He’s a collectivist thug that stands to contradict and trample every founding principle of America. Does not using the “S” word make you feel better?
His ideals, like yours, represent the cloudy, contradictory fog of nonsense that has the greatest nation in the history of mankind circling the drain.
