Obama is a Socialist? – This Conservative Meme Needs to be Retired

“Well, the stimulus package passed and look at the stock market.”

Senator, Lindsey Graham (R – SC)

What an absurd statement. Sen. Graham is probably aware of its absurdity, which leads me to ponder: why would he say such a thing? Of course, he would love us to believe that Obama is responsible for the lowly state of the stock market. I suspect from what he said next on Sunday’s Meet the Pres s, Graham’s motives for the insinuation were even more misleading.

Graham finished, (emphasis added) “I think the president has quite frankly, in his budget, told us a lot about who he is and what he believes, and it’s scary.”

The implication that we should fear Obama’s beliefs is nothing but a backdoor accusation of a “socialist” agenda represented in the president’s budget. In effect, Graham has found a way to accuse Obama of such a program without actually saying it.

The senator should leave such tripe for the conservative pundits who, incidentally, have received far too much press as of late. For that reason they shall remain unnamed in this post.

Calling Obama a socialist is every bit as pointless as holding him responsible for stock prices. The inherent silliness of the “socialist” meme was recently given hilarious treatment in a OpEdNews.com post, by Steven Lesser:

… It is impossible to be a Socialist or a Communist if one is not calling for the nationalization of entire industries… If a government or a leader of a government is not taking over complete ownership and control of every business that has a certain function (i.e. does similar things), then you do not have a government or government leader that is Socialist or Communist. There is a similar relationship with property rights. If a government or leader is not advocating or actively taking private property rights away from people, you don’t have a Socialist or Communist government or leader.

The closest we are coming to doing anything remotely like this right now is with banking. There are people out there who are advocating temporary Nationalization of the banking industry, including some Republicans. Obama is an opponent of this idea…

The above quote was edited for the sake of disagreeing without being disagreeable. Lesser tends to treat Obama’s Republican critics harshly in his post. It’s hard to blame him for his incredulous tone. After all, his post was written in response to a letter to bloggers on the extremely conservative website, FreeRepublic.com from the site’s owner, Jim Robinson. He began his letter with this “gem”:

Unfortunately, we are saddled with a communist sympathizer in the White House. I don’t know whether or not he’s an actual card carrying commie, but he’s definitely an America-hating, anti-capitalist Marxist leftist who thinks communism is the way to go…

As I recall, FDR faced similar accusations back in the day.

Roosevelt shut down the banking system for the eight days following his inauguration in 1933. He restored a modicum of public confidence in the banks over those eight days with little more than a public tongue-lashing of bank operators, at the same time portraying an overwhelming sense of optimism regarding the American economy. While FDR is accused of a socialist agenda to this day, New Dealer & American journalist, Raymond Moley remarked, aptly in my opinion, that through Roosevelt’s efforts, “Capitalism was saved in eight days.”

What do you think Sen. Graham is getting at when he says “scary” in the above context? I think Graham, and others afflicted with his political disposition, are engaged in a losing strategy. They’re invoking the “Obama is a socialist” message intending listeners to somehow associate the president with Soviet communism and the latent anxiety left over from the Cold War.

I’m old enough to remember the Cold War. More recently I’ve spent more than a little time studying the period. It is that combined experience that has led me to the conclusion that Americans’ Cold War fears, were appropriate at various short periods during the tense era; however, they were too often overblown, sometimes irrational, and occasionally they were exploited by politicians. The present conservative invocation of such fears strikes me as one or all of the latter examples.

At the very least, assigning blame for falling stock prices to the Obama administration — and here’s why it’s not — is a sword that cuts two ways. Sen. Graham surely understands that blaming Obama for the down market means that he’ll also have to give Obama credit when prices rise. If the today’s market bump (+373 NYSE today) is an indicator of anything, it will mean that we’ll find out if he does soon enough.

Even if he doesn’t, the “socialist” meme needs to be challenged for the nonsense that it is. The Obama budget is, admittedly, ambitious, but it’s nothing to be afraid of.

Image - Flickr.com User: ProgressOhio - by way of CreativeCommons.org

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Zema H.

11:44PM PDT on Sep 10, 2009

Yeah, cuz Bush the Terrorist was sooooooo much better than our current incarnation of President!......... Seriously? NOW people wanna get upset? This country truly has gone crazy! Who are we anymore? Didn't the majority vote him in? Did everyone prefer McCain, and Obama stole the election? Some people just aren't happy unless there's something to complain about! Remember how he got Gates and Crowley to sit down at the same table to drink a beer and work on resolving issues? Only to have Fox News (news, ha!) jump on the fact that they were all drinking imported beer?! REALLY?! Can the man just do his job? It hasn't even been a year yet! We gave Bush eight whole years to screw this thing up! Can Obama work through the first ONE without the naysayers being counterproductive?! This whole thing makes me sick!

send a green star

Cam V.

9:05PM PDT on Jun 7, 2009

Take your blinders off folks .... this man and his policies are socialist .... his early political teachings were very much the same and he will bankrupt every last one of you if he keeps it up ....

Dynamite S.

7:04AM PDT on Jun 7, 2009

Susan,

Thank you for that education, I did not even think about the informed concent part of the equation. :)

*greenstars*

Past Member .

6:50AM PDT on Jun 5, 2009

ps Dynamite: left out our friend prostitution. again, consent. long as one isn't forced into it, it's no-one's business but the contracting parties. it's *all* about choice, and yes the gov *does* violate that.. BAD Gov! no taxes for you!

(care2 isn't reacting to the "add comment" button, so forgive if this double-posts, trying again).

6:36AM PDT on Jun 5, 2009

Dynaminte, re: pedophilia, it's about informed consent. if someone has reached the age of consent then it's kosher. what that age is is debatable but should apply across the board from drinking/drugging to sex and military service, and our constant raising of the age of "adulthood" to me is socialism itself, especially when applied selectively as it is. you're either an adult or you aren't and if you are then you've the right to be self-determining.

re: death, that's totally up to the individual hence i'm against any law restricting suicide or assistance therewith as i just don't feel within my rights to interefere. to me, such things are socialism of the highest order in that they are using law to engineeer consenting interpersonal behaviour of which finances are a comparatively small facet.

to me criminal law draws its only legitimacy in protections against violations of consent, so if someone wants to die let them; they want help and can afford the bill or know a good samaritan, butt out, regardless what we think is "justified". there is no "duty to live".

abortion is the only one even close to arguable on consent grounds, and for that i apply the same rule of self ownership and feel if it's physically connected to you then your will prevails, though i accept a compromise respecting the admittedly conflicted interests.

the real debate is over what's public domain and what isn't, which is also the debate over socialism, to get back to topic.

9:53AM PDT on May 29, 2009

socialist? no...the man at the helm is sailing a marxist ship! just wait, time will tell.

8:07AM PDT on May 28, 2009

Susan, I agree and disagree :)

So, there should be no laws against pedifiles? If an adult convinces a child, pre-teen, or teen to willingly have sex then it's ok? After all it is only the moral society that says it's wrong and teaches the child that adults don't do those things to kids. It is only moral laws that punish such behavior. There has to be SOME moral laws, though there are many that go WAY too far.

The abortion issue as I see it isn't about morals. The government (and most of society) hold that life itself is an inalienable right which holds true for those who don't want to die, however with a baby in the womb nobody can ask the baby if it wants to die. If the gov. says we have "choice" to decide that for a fetus just because we don't know it's thoughts or feelings, then they should agree that we all have that "choice", which means killing and invalid that can't communicate wouldn't be wrong and neither would suicide or assisted suicide.

If the choice is about what a person can do with their own body then prostitution, assisted suicide, and suicide would be legal.

(continued next post)

8:02AM PDT on May 28, 2009

The debated question has always been when does life begin? (this isn't a moral issue) With advances in science and our own knowledge we know (whether or not many will admit it) that the body/fetus begins when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, but is that life? OR is life when there is a heartbeat, or brain function?

According to the origin of the word life [from P.Gmc. *liba- (cf. O.N. lif "life, body," Du. lijf "body," O.H.G. lib "life," Ger. Leib "body"] it means body, not heartbeat or brain function or, for that matter, not "able to survive outside the mother".

Perhaps we can look to when life ends? Even though it is rare, you can regain consiciousness when there is no brain activity ["Boy who was 'gone' opens his eyes and squeezes mom's hand", Seattle Post-Intelligencer (United Press International Report), 1/26/89, p. A3.], however when the heart stops everthing stops and even the body dies and starts to decay. The heartbeat of a fetus starts about 3 weeks after feterlization.

See, using science and logic we can tell when life really begins as opposed to just living tissue.

1:48PM PDT on May 23, 2009

Dynamite: +1. Pro-Choice should mean just that, on all fronts. When you force people to be moral you rob them of the ability to be so because morality hinges on intent not just action. not to mention the fact that "morality" is a purely subjective notion despite protestations to the contrary by religionists and humanists alike, though as you say in the case of Christians the forced charity goes against even their own religion even though charity itself is its highest value (and my own for what that's worth; imma libertarian politically but a socialist in my personal life and love communal living, homeless outreach etc).

We're a nation founded on the concept of individual *choice* - not rote democracy therefore in most areas of government "majority will" carries little weight in the Constitution and is tempered by the Bill of Rights - and the sooner both wings of the War Party learn that the sooner we'll realise the promise of individual Liberty made by our founders but thusfar only hinted at in practice - including by the founders, of course, but just cuz they were hypocrites doesn't mean we have to be, yes?

8:58AM PDT on Apr 23, 2009

Socialism requires that you "sacrifice/give up for the good of_____"

Jesus wasn't a "government" socialist he never took anything from anyone nor did he force anyone to give anything. He gave people a choice. He was against taxes and interest.

When you use force, you cause resentment, rebellion, and hate, and you divide people, which is the total opposite of what Jesus wanted. He was the ultimate example of "lead by example, not by force" and the golden rule.

He also knew what others can't seem to grasp, each individual person has to find there way to goodness on their own, because only by the process of trial and error, by which we learn, can we retain the value and importance of a lesson learned, thereby learning that being/doing good is best.

When you force people you take all that away, thereby going against God's will.

So, being a socialist privately is all well and good but when you aspire to use the government to force people that is wrong.