It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism. What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favourable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies. The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.
I would quibble that what Obama favors is a kind of Socialism, just that he achieves it through regulation rather than confiscation. But the end result is the same… a planned, political economy where political operatives make decisions according to their own prerogatives rather than letting people make decisions for themselves. The hugely expensive politically-driven push to wind and solar power that results in consumers paying more for energy is one example, and the wretched and unpalatable school lunches dictated by the whims of the president’s wife are another. Then there is, of course, Obamacare where the Government decides men should have to pay for women’s gynecological services and the mentally healthy must pay for the genital mutilation of transgendered people because these are voting blocs for the ruling political coalition. Britain’s NHS has politicized and bureaucratized the practice of medicine; Obamacare has achieved the same result with the thin veneer that private bureaucrats, rather than Government ones, administer the program.
If all a company’s decisions are dictated by the Government, the company is de facto socialized. And when the details of running the economy are worked out between corrupt politicians and corrupt businessmen, Obama has successfully nationalized the Chicago style of Government.
Here’s the link to Sowell’s original: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist
Sowell’s point is that, under the traditional definition of “socialism” which requires government ownership of the means of production, Obama should be classified as a fascist.
Socialism and fascism are both forms of collectivism. Fascism leaves ownership technically in private hands, then negates it (or replaces it with government control in-practice) via regulations and mandates.
I agree that Obama and Hillary, and anyone in America today who thinks that our overly-large government should be even bigger, is a fascist. But I also agree with the “socialist” label because the traditional definition (focusing on government ownership of stuff) may be too narrow. As Kevin D. Williamson has put it:
Emphasis added.
People call Obama, Hillary, Bernie, etc. socialists when people fear to say “fascist” (or don’t know to). I think that, with the updated definition of “socialism” above, both labels fit.
P.S. Having endorsed your “quibble with Sowell”, I think his whole article is worth reading. Here’s a little more.
That’s a good point, which I have not seen put in quite that way before.
You can’t reason a left-liberal out of her leftism, because the person’s ego is at stake. Not only “virtue signalling” whereby the person acquires approval or “cheap grace” from others; but also the person’s -inner vision of herself- as a superior being pursuing superior ends.
“If all a company’s decisions are dictated by the Government, the company is de facto socialized [however much it is de jure privately”owned”]. And when the details of running the economy are worked out between corrupt politicians and corrupt businessmen, Obama has successfully nationalized the Chicago style of Government.”
As see National Socialism.
Sowell is an intellect, a bit myopic a times.
People on the right who describe Obama as a Socialist are doing so in a general way, because of the obvious direction of his actions. I would think, calling Obama a Marxist would describe the obvious intent of his agendas. Promoting a system where no one is allowed to do better/excel over another. Fascism can only be seen in the result & as long as industry (Chamber of Commerce) continues to pander to Obama & the Democrats, as insurance for profit.
Socialism, fascism and communism are generalized concepts which all have shifting ground as a foundation.
We have long prattled on about representative democracy vs. “pure” democracy, totally free market capitalism vs. regulated capitalism and now Utopian socialism vs. Venezuelan or Norwegian or California style socialism.
It is never possible to argue the generalized indicators against a restrictive definition.
So, we have yet another area of discourse bounded by situational escape clauses.
If socialism were generally positive within a society (as in “socialized security”) we would have the word as a part of our language which indicates an ideal or at positive good.
But, in spite of all their huffing and puffing and eloquence, Progressives do everything they can to avoid having “socialism” attached to their agenda. Bernie Sanders is a radical socialist compared to Hillary who is an incremental socialist.
I would agree with Dr. Sowell that the Progressives are more fascist than socialist. They don’t intend to live in a co-op, or work on a farm or in a factory co-owned by the workers. They see themselves as the intelligentsia, and they want a Soviet-style dictatorship, with the ruling elite class dictating government policy. For the peasants’ own good, of course.
Robert Heinlein said that there are really only two political philosophies, and that labels like fascist, Nazi, socialist, or communist are just a case of to-may-to, to-mah-to. Either you want to control other people, or you don’t.
By classical definitions, it’s clearly national socialism. However after the “unpleasantness” of the 1930s and 1940s, the Left achieved a triumph of philosophical jiu-jitsu rebranding National Socialism and Fascism as some “right-wing conservative” pejorative to deflect their own responsibility for it’s left-wing political roots.
Just as they have whitewashed the National Socialist roots of many of the Islamic Police State political philosophies of the post WW2-era: Nasserism, Ba’athism, the Muslim Brotherhood and other “nationalist” Arab movements like Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO.
A good one from Ron Paul last month: http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-fascism-a-bipartisan-affliction.aspx?article=8584066212H11690&redirect=false&contributor=Ron+Paul
Again, I would say that “fascist” and “socialist” both apply – if you’re going with the broader Kevin D. Williamson definition of socialism.
Paul continues:
RTWT
Obama has stated repeatedly that a single-payer health care system is the ultimate goal. It’s possible he’s seen the light and realized that other sectors can come under control more efficiently (that is, the process of control — not the sectors themselves) via regulation rather than outright takeover. The choice facing the Left is which system (socialist or fascist) best suits them. Fascism is probably more lucrative.
It should be remembered that Thomas Sowell was a socialist in his youth, as many present day Conservatives were, and his definition of socialism was defined then. He sees Obama striving for things other than the socialism he knew as a youth, and therefore shies away from the label. He very clearly agrees VtK and ILoveCapitalism, however, with the detrimental effects his form of economic control would have.
Obama is a socialist who thinks every American is in the 1% of the world and he is right about that. Living on welfare/dole is better than being a king in sub sahara Africa as evidenced by the last king of Rwanda living on welfare in Virginia getting better free healthcare than you could buy in his homeland.