Obama implies that socialism is as shameful as fascism & Soviet communism

[JMorris]

....

But we cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone's views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like "socialist" and "Soviet-style takeover;" "fascist" and "right-wing nut" may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.

....

The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning - since after all, why should we listen to a "fascist" or "socialist" or "right wing nut?" It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate that we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/01/obama-michigan-graduation_n_559688.html

to even imply that socialism is as shameful & disgusting a political position to hold as fascism & stalinism is dishonest. this kind of dishonesty & patronizing to people too stupid to know the difference between these political positions is the reason why i didnt vote for obama in 2008, and wont vote for him in the future.

 

[Revoltingest]

to even imply that socialism is as shameful & disgusting a political position to hold as fascism & stalinism is dishonest. this kind of dishonesty & patronizing to people too stupid to know the difference between these political positions is the reason why i didnt vote for obama in 2008, and wont vote for him in the future.

Obama strikes me as disingenuous too, especially since I view him as socialist. Perhaps for some, the word "socialist" is an insult,
but I merely see it as an accurate description of his agenda. It doesn't make him evil or shameful....he just holds values different
from mine. Moreover, I've heard plenty of divisive, demonizing & duplicitous language from him too.

Perhaps he's being clever by trying to make the "socialist" label off limits in application to him.

 

[*Anne*]

I applaud his call for civility.

 

[Smoke]

this kind of dishonesty & patronizing to people too stupid to know the difference between these political positions is the reason why i didnt vote for obama in 2008, and wont vote for him in the future.

It's not the reason I won't vote for him in the future, but it strengthens my conviction in that regard.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well I think maybe you misread what Obama was really saying. Read it more slowly. But I agree, I'm not voting for Obama again either. I might join the Socialist Party for real

 

[JMorris]

he was saying that calling someone a socialist is an insult on par with calling someone a fascist or stalinist. i not only read the transcript, i watched him say it (on cnn).

 

[Eliot Wild]

he was saying that calling someone a socialist is an insult on par with calling someone a fascist or stalinist. i not only read the transcript, i watched him say it (on cnn).

With all due respect, that is not my interpretation of the comment. And this is in no way intended as a defense of Obama or his policies, I'm just saying that grouping those "insults" together doesn't mean he or anyone else considers them "on par" with one another.

I think he was simply saying that unfair characterizations of one's opponents make it more difficult to compromise. It doesn't mean those unfair characterizations are all the same.

If I refer to someone as a socialist in this country, generally speaking, that is viewed as an insult, at least in the conservative part of the country where I live. And by calling someone a socialist, if it is a mischaracterization of their position, I have been unfair. Moreover, I may have sabotaged any attempts to reach a compromise with that person.

However, if I refer to someone as a murderous rapist, I have effectively done the same thing. That doesn't mean that I am saying socialists are on the same level as murderous rapists. It just means that I have in both instances unfairly characterized my opponent, unless of course, again, my opponent happens to be either a socialist or a murderous rapist. Then I have fairly and appropriately characterized them.

 

[Eliot Wild]

If I refer to someone as a socialist in this country, generally speaking, that is viewed as an insult, at least in the conservative part of the country where I live. And by calling someone a socialist, if it is a mischaracterization of their position, I have been unfair. Moreover, I may have sabotaged any attempts to reach a compromise with that person.

Also, I would like to add that, personally, I don't think calling someone a "socialist" is necessarily insulting, especially given the fact that such a label could be applied to all Americans. Let's face it, our government engages in certain socialist practices and policies as standard institutional measures.

In my mind, since it is not an insult, it is only unfair to characterize someone as a socialist when their position is not derived from nor in any way parallels that particular political philosophy.

But then again, any characterization can be viewed as insulting depending on who employs it and against whom it is being employed. For example, if a leftwing radical calls his fellow leftwing radical a "lifetime Republican", that is probably meant as an insult and it probably doesn't accurately characterize his fellow radical's position. But I'm sure that same label is not intended as an insult when used at the GOP convention.

Anyway, I just wanted to make it clear, that even if I am wrong about Obama's implications or lack thereof in his comments above, I certainly don't find anything insulting about being called a socialist, at least not in and of itself.

 

[Sunstone]

It's not the reason I won't vote for him in the future, but it strengthens my conviction in that regard.

I'm going to have a very hard time voting for him because of this and several more important reasons than this one. Basically, the Republicans will need to run Liz Cheney or someone like her against Obama before I will vote for that ******* again.

 

[Nepenthe]

Obama strikes me as disingenuous too, especially since I view him as socialist. Perhaps for some, the word "socialist" is an insult,
but I merely see it as an accurate description of his agenda. It doesn't make him evil or shameful....he just holds values different
from mine. Moreover, I've heard plenty of divisive, demonizing & duplicitous language from him too.

Perhaps he's being clever by trying to make the "socialist" label off limits in application to him.

I agree he's disingenuous but to label his policies socialist renders the definition of socialism meaningless and if Obama is even remotely so, any socio-economic policy where the state is involved with any aspect of capital would be considered "socialist". Labels must mean something a bit more specific if they are to have any relevance, and just a handful of things off the top of my head confirm Obama's utter disconnect with anything like socialism: His bailout of the auto industry which was intended to help big private corporations, a neutered capitalist health care plan that includes private options and private insurance companies which are still thriving, his economic policies are clearly Keynesian economics and Obama received 25 million in contributions from Wall Street. Nothing socialist here whatsoever.

The Democrats have been muttering and hand waving about universal health care since Truman, and despite having congressional sway they've done nothing. Obama is a right of center big business capitalist tinkering with preset policies to make it appear he's radically reinventing things when he's simply making subtle non-substantive gestures.

 

[Sunstone]

It would be closer to the truth to call Obama a corporatist than to call him a socialist.

 

[dust1n]

It would be closer to the truth to call Obama a corporatist than to call him a socialist.

Neoliberalism is an ideology[1] based on economic liberalism. The ideology favours economic policies based on neoclassical theories of economics that minimize the role of the state and maximize the private business sector. The term 'neoliberalism' has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships.[2]


Economic liberalization is a very broad term that usually refers to fewer government regulations and restrictions in the economy in exchange for greater participation of private entities; the doctrine is associated with neoliberalism. The arguments for economic liberalization include greater efficiency and effectiveness that would translate to a "bigger pie" for everybody.


Most first world countries, in order to remain globally competitive, have pursued the path of economic liberalization: partial or full privatisation of government institutions and assets, greater labour-market flexibility, lower tax rates for businesses, less restriction on both domestic and foreign capital, open markets, etc. British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote that: "Success will go to those companies and countries which are swift to adapt, slow to complain, open and willing to change. The task of modern governments is to ensure that our countries can rise to this challenge."[1]
In developing countries, economic liberalization refers more to liberalization or further "opening up" of their respective economies to foreign capital and investments. Three of the fastest growing developing economies today; China, Brazil and India, have achieved rapid economic growth in the past several years or decades after they have "liberalized" their economies to foreign capital. [2]


Many countries nowadays, particularly those in the third world, arguably have no choice but to also "liberalize" their economies in order to remain competitive in attracting and retaining both their domestic and foreign investments. In the Philippines for example, the contentious proposals for Charter Change include amending the economically restrictive provisions of their 1987 constitution.[3]

-Wiki.. obviously.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree he's disingenuous but to label his policies socialist renders the definition of socialism meaningless....

I've posted lengthy & boring explanations about how I see socialism as a direction of policy. In this way he qualifies.