Thread: An oddly reasonable apologist for Socialists

Birds of a Statist Feather

The McCain campaign has taken to calling Barack Obama a socialist. This is neither as derogatory as McCain's handlers seem to think nor as baseless as Obama supporters would like U. S. voters to believe. Yes, Senator Obama is something of a socialist. So is Senator McCain.
In the 21st century it's difficult to run for office without being something of a socialist. There's a basic philosophical split between people who think of government as the problem and liberty as the solution, and those who think of liberty as the problem and government as the solution. People who think of government as the solution are statists, and one of their left-wing subspecies is called "socialist." Their right-wing subspecies include paleo-or social conservatives. In reality, they're birds of a feather. Their policies may be diametrically opposed; their mindsets are near-identical.
If you ask the Republican candidate, the Democratic candidate is a socialist. So is the Republican candidate, if you ask me. To be anything else, he would have to run on a platform of reducing government -- and not just a little, but a lot. He isn't. At best, he's running on a platform of throwing good government after bad government.
Is the world's current mess due to the free market's greed, competition and carbon footprints, or much more to what Steve Forbes has called in Forbes magazine "government's big, basic blunders"? Even if Senator McCain agreed with Mr. Forbes-- I don't think he does --he wouldn't propose to nix government, only fix it. He's pushing for a government surge, figuratively and literally, militarily and fiscally, domestically and abroad.
The Republican nominee wants to ride the unruly horse of the state, not put it out to pasture. Insofar as he has better ideas than his opponent, his bid for state power may be more beneficial, but it isn't less "socialist" than Mr. Obama's quest for the same thing.
Calling someone a socialist isn't calling him names, by the way. Fine, outstanding people have been socialists at one time or another. Some have become born-again socialists since the markets have gone catawampus.
Socialists believe that society or "the community" should plan, organize and regulate people's ideas and activities through the governing elites of the state. Not all socialists propose to plan and regulate everything down to the same detail, or go to the same lengths to coerce individuals. For legitimacy, Europe's socialists currently find it advisable to stand for periodic elections. Many socialists elsewhere do not.
Socialists are spread out on a continuum from a Social Democratic centre (something like the NDP) to a Stalinist extreme on the left, and a national socialist extreme on the right (Nazi, for short). Communism and Nazism are deadly systems, but not because they're socialist. They're deadly because they're extreme.[]


People who think of government as the problem and liberty as the solution are classical liberals. As a political force, they barely exist any more, least of all in any political movement or party that calls itself liberal or Liberal. Some have found refuge as libertarian-conservatives within Western conservative parties, where they're tolerated by the dominant paleoconservative, neo-conservative, or red-Tory types.
True-blue or red conservatives tolerate libertarian-conservatives because individual liberty and freedom of enterprise still raise significant electoral echoes. Classical liberals who can't find a home in Europe's Christian Democratic, America's Republican or Canada's Conservative parties, usually drift to single issue movements, such as smokers' rights, gun-lobby or free-speech. A few embrace the fringe of anarcho-libertarianism. There are actual libertarian parties in North America, but they tend to receive fewer votes than the Marxist-Leninists.
Capitalist-socialist hybrids do well at the polls. Why? I suppose voters feel there's no use flogging the dead horse of socialism-- that way lies Cuba or North Korea -- but capitalism seems like a bucking bronco; ride it for a few seconds and it throws you for a loop. So maybe combining two systems that don't work will make one that does. Yes, it's like marrying two ugly spouses to get a pretty one, but hey ....
Talking of broncos, the U. S. presidential derby has the spectators on their feet. The nags are rounding the clubhouse turn. The black stallion leads by a length. Considering that a nose is enough, he's in great shape. Still, many a punter has torn up his losing ticket in disgust, only to scramble for the pieces under the bleachers after the leading horse has inexplicably faded in the home stretch ....
Birds of a statist feather

Even as the one who posted the article I will be the first to disagree with part. He says that socialism is not as derogatory as one might think.


But it should be. Statism no matter what form it takes should be derogatory. It is the opposite of our constitution the basis of our government and the highest law of the land. Statism is the opposite of patriotism in a sense.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Even as the one who posted the article I will be the first to disagree with part. He says that socialism is not as derogatory as one might think.

But it should be. Statism no matter what form it takes should be derogatory. It is the opposite of our constitution the basis of our government and the highest law of the land. Statism is the opposite of patriotism in a sense.

:blah: Do you honestly have nothing better to do than whinge about other people's political ideologies?