| Liberalism (US version) | Socialism |
| Favors a multi-party system (i.e. conservatives can kick them out whenever they get enough votes) | Favors a single-party system. My way or the highway |
| Favors free speech | Favors acceptable speech |
| Favors individual social freedom | Prohibits all deviancy from the limited accepted social formula |
| Favors personal career fulfillment | Favors subordination of your vocational desires for the good of society |
| Favors total religious freedom and equality | Favors no religious freedom in order to create the greatest equality—absence of any religion |
| Favors taxes that require more from those who have more | Favors taxing you 100% and doling back out to you your "fair share" as determined by the government |
So how is Obama a socialist again?
5 comments:
Unfortunately you are confusing socialism with its more totalitarian forms of communism and fascism. Socialism is none of the items you have listed as its characteristics, but are every one the characteristics of Bolshevism and Nazism (without the limitation of religion).
All of the European style socialistic countries are multi-party, allow free speech by constitutional declaration, allows private enterprise, but severely taxes its profits, allows personal choices in education, career and religion.
While taxation is higher in these socialistic countries, none of them are 100%.
Obama is a socialist simply because of his writings and how he feels (according to both his books) that the government has a duty to right the wrongs of who he calls the disadvantaged and under-privileged. His own writings in his book "The Audacity of Hope" show that his mentors are socialistic and anti-capitalistic (see Saul Alinsky's "Rulebook for Radicals"). He is socialistic by his own words.
BHO was called a socialist by the Chicago chapter of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) in their March 2000 newsletter when BHO was running for Congressman from the 1st CD in Illinois.
Their newsletter said:
"For Congressman of the 1st Congressional District, the Executive Committee was faced with two very good candidates. As we are not making endorsements but merely recommendations, we felt no conflict in recommending both Bobby Rush and Barak [sic]Obama…
Barak [sic] Obama is serving only his second term in the Illinois State Senate so he might be fairly charged with ambition, but the same might have be said of Bobby Rush when he ran against Congressman Charles Hayes. Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem [sic] and in Chicago.
When Obama participated in a 1996 [University Of Chicago's Young Democratic Socialists] Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy."
So again, its not my words, but other that know BHO very well that label him a socialist. What more can I say?
Not that Stephen Colbert is the most reliable news source out there, but he did have the official Socialist candidate for president (Brian Moore) on his show recently. And Mr. Moore was pretty adamant that Obama isn't a socialist.
I enjoyed your post, Elizabeth. Thanks!
I think I would go with the DSA chapter of Chicago that endorsed BHO this year and not Mr. Moore. Also, Mr. Moore has stated that he agrees with Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" that recommends that socialists hide their true beliefs until they are elected else they will scare those needed to help them to power.
You should procure and read Mr. Alinsky's book, Liz. It will really open your eyes about BHO. There is a reason that his campaign would not release his Harvard Law papers, writings, and editorials.
Probably the same reason the Hillary campaign did not want her senior thesis paper to be released since it was also very complimentary of Mr. Alinsky.
I have no problem with radicals, revolutionaries, or rebels. I happen to be one on many points, but I wish those in the BHO campaign would feel strong enough in their convictions to stand up and say that's what they are instead of hiding, obfuscating, and misdirecting.
That's the part that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Why not release your Law papers? Why not stand up for your friends and pastor? Why not say you knew exactly what you were doing when you met with Wright, Farrakan, and Ayers instead of running for cover and playing "a Peter": I never knew them.
I would have much more respect for your new President if he was less a "girly man" as Calif CA called him, and more a "this is what I am, I am proud of it and now deal with it."
Alas, I think you and I will find that BHO's administration is going to more of the same old Beltway politics beginning with another $25-50 Billion USD bail-out for the labor unions of the Big 3 auto industry. Paybacks, pay-offs, buy-ins continue just like before, just like always. No change. More the same.
Good speaking with you again via the blogs, EML. Hope mine hasn't caused you too much palpitations. ;-) Love to you both.
We are sliding further and further toward your definition of Socialism. America has never been what the idealists call it, but having those ideals give us something to press toward. And that isn't a bad thing.
Post a Comment