Now ‘”Socialist” is just a code word for Black, even if the Black person happens to be a Socialist
The mind reels.
I’m beginning to wonder if there is any effort to find truth any more. I’m beginning to wonder if there are any standards involved in being on the editorial board of a major newspaper any more. I’m beginning to wonder if we are seeing the triumph of Orwell’s dystopia, where language has lost all meaning except for the goal of obfuscation in the service of political talking points. I’m beginning to wonder if we have passed Through the Looking Glass into a land where newspapers and politics have been taken over by a host of Humpty Dumptys who are determined that a word will “mean just what [they] choose it to mean””neither more nor less.”
What am I talking about? This execrable piece by Kansas City Star editor and columnist Lewis Diuguid entitled, “Shame on Palin and McCain for using an old code word for black.” The only excuse I can think of for this column is that it may be a lame and half-baked attempt at humor. But alas, it doesn’t read that way.
Diuguid writes (it’s not very long, so I’ll give you the whole thing):
The “socialist” label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.
J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.
Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.
McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.
Shame on McCain and Palin.
If Diuguid actually knew the meaning of the word “shame,” he might feel some himself—because three of the four civil rights leaders he mentioned were in fact Socialists or even Communists, and the fourth was intermittently sympathetic to the cause. Ah, but let’s not let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a lousy argument.
Here are some facts anyway—for those of us old-fashioned enough to believe they might matter:
Paul Robeson (about whom I have written extensively; see my three-part series beginning here) was careful never to join the Communist Party, but there is no question whatsoever that he was a strong supporter. If you have a moment’s doubt about this, please read his tribute to the wise, great and good (his words) Stalin, delivered on Stalin’s death and not long after Robeson had earned the Stalin Peace Prize in 1952 for his service to the cause. I won’t quote too much of it; suffice to say it ends with Robeson intoning the following verse from a song written in praise of Uncle Joe by “Lewis Allan, our progressive lyricist”:
To you Beloved Comrade, we make this solemn vow
The fight will go on—the fight will still go on.
Sleep well, Beloved Comrade, our work will just begin.
The fight will go on—till we win—until we win.
Moving right along, we come to W.E.B. DuBois, who had joined the Socialist Party as a young man but resigned in 1911 to support Wilson, only to become more involved later in life in leftist causes (getting the Lenin Peace Prize in 1948) and officially joining the Communist Party in 1961 at the ripe old age of 93:
Dr. Du Bois said he had concluded that “capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction.”
“No universal selfishness can bring social good to all,” he said. “Communism—the effort to give all men what they need and to ask of each the best they can contribute—this is the only way of human life.”
Next up: A. Philip Randolph, trailblazing union organizer and outspoken member of the Socialist Party from his twenty-first year onward.
Martin Luther King is the outlier here; he was not a socialist, although he expressed sympathies. For example, King told his staff in 1966:
There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.
Just wondering: is Diuguid ignorant of these facts? Or does he think them irrelevant? Or does he know them full well and think others are ignorant? Or does he think at all? (Oops, that must be racist of me, since Diuguid himself is black.)
“Socialism” is a code word for black? Bizarre. A less bizarre notion is that “racism” has now become a code word for “all criticism of Obama”—or “criticism of any black person for any reason whatsoever.”
ADDEDNUM: More from Jules Crittenden.]
You’re scaring me Neo. Not really. It is the message not the messenger that is frightening.
But. But. But, won’t he grow into the office? Isn’t all of this just campaign rhetoric? Can’t we, like Ken Adelman, trust that he and his associates don’t actually mean what they say? His record (meagre though it is) doesn’t actually portend his intentions–does it?
I fear we are going to have an extended Halloween this year. The goblins and trolls are close to taking control.
When truth and history are mangled to this extent, one has to wonder if we’re going into—forget warming—a chilling little Dark Age.
At this point I’m almost afraid to, you know, log on to my computer.
So, calling Obama a ‘socialist’ for his Spread the Wealth comment is now tantamount to racism.
Does that make me racist that I though the same of Biden when he made the “rich Americans need to pay more taxes to be patriotic” remark?
Or am I now just a retroactive racist?
At least the comments are tearing him a new one…
Bye Bye Miss Amercian Pie.
Typo: I meant “American”
“Socialism” is a code word for black?
I guess. I’ll note that “good ol'” Joe Stalin was a socialist.
How terrible, to have gone thru life black and not even realize it. Now that is oppressive!
Neo, you can cease to wonder, the fix is in, the media is going to save us from ourselves by doing everything possible to elect Obama.
The ends justify the means and when the enlightened ones finish trying to re-engineer our society we will have a huge mess that will take a bit to right itself.
I do have faith that we as a nation will make real poor socialist and that every effort to bring us the masses into line will end up in a big ole screwed up mess. Then if we should wake up and elect some decent responsible people.
An inability to handle criticism, the New Left doesn’t see it as a weakness, I believe either they don’t care or don’t see it but it’s a crescendo to the one-party state (and it’s the Republicans fault, and so our genocide of them will be doubly justified, tra-lalala and over to Oz we goooOOooOO)
Miserable lil’ creeps.
I think I’ve got it!
Socialist = Black, ergo racist
Liberal = Socialist = Black, ergo racist
Democrat = Liberal = Socialist = Black, ergo racist
Community Organizer = Democrat = Liberal = Socialist = Black, ergo racist
Associated with Seditious Terrorist = Community Organizer = Democrat = Liberal = Socialist = Black, ergo racist.
This is quite easy once you get the hang of it. Really, it’s just so obvious.
Quit confusing me, Neo! I had just gotten used to the idea that “skinny” was a code word for black. I suppose, given the fact that Obama has been reported to smoke an occasional cigarette that the word “smoker” will be the next code word for black.
Pingback:Is there no word that isn’t Rethuglican code for “negro”?
It is calculated. They may temporarily believe it in their frenzy, but don’t expect that they have thought this through. They are sure their opponents are racist and that is the only reason anyone could not vote for Obama. Therefore, anything their opponents say must actually just be a disguise for their racist thoughts.
It’s so easy when you know the language.
You people are consciously unconscious racists.
And that’s the worst kind.
Neo, you continue to surprise with the variety and volume of detailed information stored in your brain. I had no idea the people referred to were actually communists, and therefore, deserving of the label “socialist”. I wish there were a way to insert your article into all news outlets that ran with the socialist = racist stories. Although it may be possible to erase internet history, it is not possible to erase the emotional effect of conservatives tarred with racial overtones for using the word “socialist” on television and in print stories already run nationwide. Be assured, none of them will print or broadcast a “correction” by noting your article, and your blog is the ONLY place I have seen this information. But then, we are faced with half of our nation (or more) playing an emotional game of Mean Girls out of “Queen Bees and Wannabees,” aren’t we. Logic and reason has nothing to do with this process. Absolutely anything with emotional impact can be used to shame, harass and isolate the “opponent”. Truth has nothing to do with winning and being in control….
Have no fear. I am assured McCain – Palin will win the day.
I saw a VOLVO 940 STATION WAGON today with a McCain – Palin bumper sticker on the back glass.
As I predicted long before Drudge, I believe it will be a landslide. Many are just saying they will vote for Obama when asked, so they won’t get hounded – or beat over the head with their own McCain – Palin sign.
bad haikumenter:
Racists? No. But your side made it about race, right out of the gate. Funny name, black, try to scare you, you know the drill. Can’t say this, can’t say that, because it is racist. Acorn, Ayers, Alinsky……….
I have to say though, the guy’s got big ears. And that’s funny. I don’t care who you are.
I think both instances of name calling are pretty dumb.
The “socialist” insult is so stupid it is hard to make the least bit of sense out of it. I presume McCain and Palin simply don’t understand what socialism is and they are reaching for whatever insults they think might cut.
And calling that charge racist is also dumb. I hadn’t thought that the “socialism” slur was racist. Besides, it’s really Jackie Robinson time for Barack Obama and his supporters.
But I have some sympathy with an older black man making that association. Certainly in Martin Luther King’s time he was called a socialist and a communist as a kind of slur that conveyed anger that seemed racist in its nature. I think if you were around in the 60s, you could well have a memory of that kind of smear.
I just googled “Martin Luther King Communist” and I saw many links to sites that I think most people would regard as racist. Try it yourself.
So the reporter is ignorant. What else is new? Stupid things are said in journalism every day and go unchecked.
But for the lot of you to go around bashing “socialism” like you’re against the idea is ridiculous.
If your house was burning would you not want the fire company to douse the flames? Would you sit back and watch your house burn and reject all socialist ideals?
As was said directly above me both accusations are ridiculous. This was not meant as a racist remark but WAS meant as an insult, when, in fact, socialism is a great thing in moderation.
Furthermore, if any political party should be shameful of their complete and utter harassment of the opponent it should be McCain/Palin. Throughout every debate there was little said about anything on the republican side and basically nonstop attacks.
Also, calling Obama a Muslim (as if somehow your religion denotes your patriotism, you fucking asshats) and the other slew of untrue things that are said about him (his wife being racist) to attempt to smear his image just because they can’t actually compete by explaining policy is absolutely ridiculous and SHAMEFUL, once again.
BR549: I had tongue in cheek. Maybe I should find a way to make that more obvious.
copithorne, King’s closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist. Jack O’Dell one of his assistants was a Communist. Robert Kennedy (a racist?) warned King to stop associating with these men. King also spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action.
Let’s see:
George Bush gives a speech at Bob Jones University and is branded an anti-Catholic right wing bigoted divider. Guilt by association.
Martin Luther King hires Commies as advisors and assistants, and on several occasions gives speeches to Commie front groups. He is warned by Bobby Kennedy! No guilt by association.
If you had explained it that way, everyone would have understood perfectly.
socialism is a great thing in moderation.
And abomination. Obamination?
Heh. Though I would be surprised if the usual neo chorus line wouldn’t challenge that idea.
It does remind me that if some of the small government enthusiasts changed their affirmation from ‘small’ to ‘as much government as needed’ a fine though important distinction, I might be able to get onboard more often.
Does my health need as little maintaining as possible? No. My car? No. My house, No. Does the policing in my neighborhood need to be as small as possible? No.
It all needs as much as necessary.
Much as the computer I sit in front of needs as much maintaining as necessary (by various file and virus checks, etc.,). (it is Windows based, after all)
It’s not a question of getting government out of the way, it’s a question of how much is needed. But I’m sure we can disagree on that all day.
br549:
I was also thinking McCain/Palin landslide, but that was before the economic meltdown. I think that tends to favor the socialists (oops).
Showing my true colors there (oops).
Anyway, I hope they can win by a large enough margin to cancel out the voter fraud and render the inevitable charges of “stolen election” moot.
Its like i hear a hint of liberals almost apologising for being driven to insane tactics. As if the #1 destination country for humanity on the planet drove them to it.
I wouldn’t take all of Bill Gates money to live a month with one of these hopelessly afflicted’s minds.
Even worse, Geopal, Martin Luther King Jr is a self avowed follower of Jesus Christ — who was more radical than any of the people you mentioned.
Martin Luther King is the preeminent symbol of our nation’s aspiration and achievement of equal rights. If the meaning of his life to you is that he is “a commie” it will come across as though that is an aspiration you don’t share and an achievement you don’t value.
In which case, Lewis Diuguld’s article is shown to be correct.
ATTENTION COMRADES:
If asked by LIEbrals about John McCain’s demand for higher redistributive taxes on the wealthy in 2000, your official RNC-approved talking points are as follows:
“John McCain opposes socialist redistribution of wealth. John McCain has ALWAYS opposed socialist redistribution of wealth.”
END OF LINE
Logern, “It’s not a question of getting government out of the way, it’s a question of how much is needed”
Unfortunately, it isn’t a question of how much is needed. It’s become a question of how much is wanted. The degree of entitlement in today’s society is staggering. The degree of government womb to tomb benefits grows annually. The largesse continues unabated. For “needy” bankers and bureaucrats right down the social/economic scale to “needy” me and thee. The answer to “how much is needed?” has been, for some time now – more, More, MORE.
The idiocy of how this redefinition of Socialism has been spun just stuns me. What kind of mind conjures this? What kinds of minds accept it?
I will tell you from personal experience of the depths of deceitfulness of the Marxists. From about 1977 until 1987 I was an academic Marxist and only rubbed elbows with the activist kind on an occasional demonstration. I was into books and theory, debating within my own mind the various critiques that the respective positions would level at each other. The few times I was gathered on those very social of occasions that demonstrations are, when I would try to strike up a conversation with others, the activist leaders would INSTRUCT ME to never identify myself as a Marxist. I was never to use the word “socialism” and never to have conversations about socialist theory. I was instructed to refer to myself and the others as “Progressives.” I was admonished a few times when I more or less did whatever the hell I wanted and said whatever I wanted to say.
I had violated a speech code. And did so flagrantly. I was a headstrong, stubborn young man who also was not fond of being deceptive. I am still that way, although I am now 53 and more inclined to keep my mouth shut when in the company of people who would take a dim view of my being a traitor to the Left.
I know the provenance of the ideas and policy preferences of these people, inside and out. Only a further degeneration into even more repugnant dissimulation would assign the meaning to “Socialism” that is now in vogue.
I wish I could scream into these kids’ brains that they are being lured on by enormously evil liars.
I am not afraid of the Obamabots for calling Obama a socialist. I know the provenance of his ideas thoroughly and I know exactly who the formative influences were in his settled thinking. They were Socialists and they espouse socialism. Obama is a Marxist, which is an intellectual term that in no way designates a race. Socialism is an ideology, not a race. Just as Islam and Muslims are of an ideology, not a race.
This planet truly has gone whacky when we have entered this kind of insane level of blatant lying, to the point of speech codes that make no sense.
Talking Points Alert,
What point are you trying to make with that statement?
– Oh and “LIEberals” is REALLY cute. Go back to high school.
I would like to further add: If this journalist has reasoned out this syllogism of socialism = “black” then we are well and truly f****d after this election. This is the level of intelligence voting for Obama and his Euro style socialists, then our education system is a lot worse than I thought it already was.
The Orwellian mangling of meaning and sense we have devolved into is truly frightful.
Combined with the viciousness of Joe the Plumber’s life being tossed for a metaphorical, public gang-rape, and you get the idea that the bots of Obamaland are low intelligence thugs.
copithorne
Yes, yes, I know what’s coming. Commie is a code word for Black, and that’s racist.
Is missing the point a just a bad habit with the left or is it a genetic disorder? Here’s the equation, pay attention!
If:
a (Bush) associates with b (bigots). Ipso facto Bush is a bigot. Don’t deny it, it was in all the papers.
Then, must it not follow that:
A (King) associates with b (Commies). Ipso facto King was a commie.
Now, if I wholly reject the If: (and I do) then, I am bound by reason and common sense to reject Then: (and I do).
Got it?
Finally, as to King’s aspirations (no man judged by the color of his skin etc. etc.), I aspire to them wholeheartedly. The achievements? Which? Once, the fact that you called a man “nigger” or “boy” made you a racist. Now, you level any, ANY, criticism, disagree in any, ANY way and you are a racist. You cannot believe King had this in mind, or do you?
J. Edgar Hoover was a hip trendsetter? Learn something new every day.
While it’s not clear to me why socialist should be a code word for black, that there may have been an inclination by Hoover and others to discredit black activists who had legitimate grievances is not an entirely unreasonable assumption (there was plenty of anti-black sentiment to put it mildly).
That the American dream was not as yet established for people of color, and that some pursued alternative political associations to accomplish some measure of success where their own government was still failing them does not scream to me as something particularly to be ashamed of. I mean, why point out that the Negro wants equality, when you can throw out that he is also an evil Socialist. It’s true, and make sure each time you mention it.
I’m not going to defend the guy’s story, just some related commentary.
Pingback:Bookworm Room » Famous black socialists *UPDATED*
logern: I consider it a separate question as to why these people were socialists (or, for that matter, why many Jews who came to this country from Russia in the first part of the 20th century were socialists). I’ve dealt with some of those questions in earlier posts of mine, especially the ones on Robeson, as well as this post concerning the Russian Jews.
I actually give these earlier followers a pass, at least till the worst of Stalin’s excesses were made clear, which was done some time in the 50s. After that, it is far more difficult to defend their adherence to a Utopian dream that had proved to be a nightmare.
None of this has anything to do with Diuguid’s article, though, which ignores the truth that three of the four people he specifically names as being called “socialists” because of racism actually were socialists or Communists, and the fourth was somewhat sympathetic to the cause.
Seanithan Says:
“If your house was burning would you not want the fire company to douse the flames? Would you sit back and watch your house burn and reject all socialist ideals?”
Having the public run things that can not be run without a huge conflict of interest by the private sector is not ‘socialism’. Neither is providing a saftey net. Income redistribution and/or ‘spreading the wealth’ is a socialist concept… hence the charge. Having the government provide services because they’re ‘a right’ (vs. a saftey net for the poor) and to have them provided with forced equality (like Obama’s long term health care goals) are also socialist.
It seems (to me) there is some confusion about the definition of “socialism”. It should define the significant difference of nuance separating the provision of certain uniquely essential common public services and utilities by government, for the public’s interest and for pragmatic reasons, from the practice of a general confiscation of personal earnings, wealth and assets for redistribution by bureaucratic fiat.
From The Random House Dictionary: Socialism n. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital, and land by the community as a whole.
Perhaps earlier history may excuse the idealization of a broad and theoretical concept of “socialism” as a well intentioned attempt at addressing the often brutal suppression, by monarchies and totalitarian governments, of equal opportunity and the economic welfare of the masses, and as inherent in thse monopoly and colonial practices; But the evolution and refinement of laws and regulations via authentic democratic authority has generally ameliorated the excesses to a great extent. The resulting system of free enterprise capitalism, while still providing a “welfare safety net”, coordinated within a system of democratic legal constraints, though not perfect, has clearly demonstrated superior ability to provide for the greatest economic common good (in comparison to communist or other totalitarian experiments of broad “socialist” control). It’s a no-brainer, or it should be, unless and for exclusive reasons, “you’re” strictly interested in promoting and limiting the general domain of economic conditions thru bureaucratic power, particularly via a politics of envy; Once there, you’ve only gone in circles, “progressive” socialism is just a recloak, a modern replay of monopoly and colonial suppression of the people. Educated people should know better by now.
Logern et al., beware of reasoning by analogy, and of ginormous logical leaps!
Does your health require as little maintenance as possible, you asked? No, you answered, it requires as much as necessary. And then you skipped right over a bunch of important stuff to declare that therefore the question of “how much government” is simple: as much as necessary, just like your health. ???
If you have a wart, is it necessary to have it frozen off? Or can you live with it? If you’re 90 and are diagnosed with prostate cancer, is it necessary to undergo aggressive treatment, or will that treatment either shorten your life or diminish your quality of life to the point where you’d have been better off just living with a slow-growing cancer? If you’re pregnant and 37, is it necessary to have amniocentesis, or (let’s just say, as it was true in my husband’s and my case) if you’re committed to not aborting your baby, can you muddle through with ultrasound so that your midwife can be prepared for any serious delivery complications?
Do you see? Reasonable people can differ on “necessity.” Reasonable people do. Please don’t fall into the trap of believing that what you feel is necessary is actually necessary.
And I should add, in case it wasn’t obvious, in each of the analogs I provided, there’s a risk of pain, injury, or death that accompanies each of the sides (yes, even the wart thing, if it’s a plantar wart). Shouldn’t people have some say in how much risk they want to take on? Shouldn’t a society have a say in how much risk it wants to take on in determining the size and scope of government? Should this question be considered “settled” just because some of the people in society believe that the answer should always fall to the “more intervention” side?
This is why we have the system we do: so that even when a majority of people (we hope it’s a real majority, anyway) do come down on one side or the other of the question, the minority group has a NEVERENDING opportunity to try to change the minds of as many as they can. You may NOT take that away and expect still to live in the America we all love.
Socialism is an attempt to capture the dynamic that often occurs inside a loving family, and pretend it will work among total strangers with little in common.
Maybe it would work if human nature didn’t make the unproductive half unappreciative from the lack of self reliance, and the productive half resentful for pulling their unappreciative weight.
The eternal attraction of socialism is no wonder. For untold millenia humans lived in large extended families without individual property, they are genetically hard-wired for such behaviors. But it works only in small comunities where everybody knows everybody, and only if hunting-gathering is the only source of sustenance. Since agricultural revolution (around 8000 years ago) this type of society organization is inadequate. Puritans in Plymouth Rock get this lesson hard way – almost half of them starved in result of collective farming of the land, and they divided the fields into family-owned parcels. The social progress since then was establishing and strengthening of individualism, which liberated creativity and brought about all wonders of modernity. That is why it is so sad joke when socialists call themselves progressives, while actually they are retrogrades wanting to return us in 8000 years old past.
As for accusations of racism, more strong evidence needed than simply ascribe motives to people: it is impossible to read other men minds. In such a way everybody can be accused in anything.
Sooo…ahhh…does this mean “socialism” is the new “black”?
(getting an unpleasant vision of what passes for fashion will look like now)
There are several references in this thread that suggests that if you expect any services at all from the government then you are a de facto socialist.
That is almost too absurd to merit reply. However, I think it safe to assert that there are no Anarchists posting on this site. No one denies that government is necessary, nor that government has a legitimate role in our lives. Thanks to the wisdom of our Founders, we have a constitution that enumerates the legitimate roles of government. Thanks to the short-sidedness of suceeding generations, that constitution is continually eroded in the interst of expediency.
Unfortunately, there is an almost inexorable push/pull from two directions toward larger, more intrusive government. Those in government want their power to increase their power–sometimes for noble impulse, sometimes not. Conversely, others want their fellow citizens to provide personal benefits through government that they cannot, or will not, provide for themselves.
At what point this larger, more intrusive government becomse Socialist is really an academic argument. It may be entertaining to debate, and a useful label in a political campaign, but signifies little to me.
I personally have abandoned such terms as Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, etc. I have two terms of reference: STATIST and INDIVIDUALIST. I vote for individualist. Statist is self-explanatory. An Individualist in my mind is a person who is very cautious about ceding his/her options to Statists. An Individualist understands history and recognizes that whatever is ceded to Statists is seldom if ever recovered. An Invidualist is constantly struggling against two forces; the government seeking more power and the supplicants demanding more “benefits”.
(
My above post jumped into life before I finished.
I coined the term Individualist because I could not think of a more descriptive label. Perhaps some of Neo’s bright readers could suggest one. I just think that Conservative, like Liberal, has become somewhat hackneyed and inaccurate in current usage.
Oldflyer,
I tend to agree with your point that it’s silly to say the government is “socialist” when it provides “services” to the public.
Socialism, in it’s simplest form, is when the government owns and controls both the means of production as well as the distribution of goods.
We are nowhere near that point regardless of the government bailout of the financial sector. It’s only one facet of the national economy.
On the other hand, all societies form governments of one sort or another – so to say that a government that provides any service at all to it’s people is “socialist” is nothing more than a silly extreme being argued.
While our own national government is responsible for providing certain “services” to the public – those services should always flow from the authority ceded by the states and the people, via the US Constitution and associated Amendments, to that federal government.
The present argument between “liberals” and “conservatives” seems to be how to best interpret the powers of the federal government regarding what services should – or should not – be provided by that federal government.
A rational argument can be made for many government programs in either direction, and such debate should be a healthy form of discussion.
Unfortunately, the Congress and President tend to simply pass laws without too much concern regarding whether it’s even within their authority – and the Supreme Court tends to assume too quickly that Congressional actions are to be deemed constitutional until proven otherwise.
Such slack enforcement of the restrictions of the Constitution are what have gotten us into the mess we are in today.
I truly believe that a restoration of Constitutional limits on government would resolve the vast majority of issues we face today.
Unfortunately, with so many having their hands in the federal cookie jar, it’s going to be almost impossible to have such a restoration as there are so many that would oppose such a movement as it would cut off their financial support.
Also, the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are definitely not being used in the classical sense, but have instead become a sort of shorthand for groups of people who adhere to certain political and social views. But “statist” and “individualist” would work just as well.
It is possible to debate ad infinitum what socialism means in general: for example, Norway or Sweden being subarctic obviously require more government services (so that people would not die in winter from the exposure). Only relatively mild climate allows USA to have so many homeless people and allows nuts to live as a tramp instead being institutionalized. But in the case of a specific country -USA – socialism means ideology of using government to other purposes except documented in her constitution and in violation of individual rights defended by this document.
I stand to recant my statement about government-provided services being linked to socialism. I was proven wrong and am obviously an intellectual inferior in this situation (as I’m young and as such haven’t been involved in political/govt discussion for long). I do have to say I agree mostly with the statements presented here, although as much as I agree with them I couldn’t possibly bring myself to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.
As a result I’d like people to present me with reasons why I should vote McCain/Palin. I’m interested in the responses.
Seanithan,
Well, I’ll assume that you have taken the first step by acknowledging that government provided services are not necessarily socialism.
The next step, should you choose to take it, is to consider the possibility that the individual can do better for themselves by having the maximum freedom possible – freedom to succeed as well as to fail.
If you take that step, then you have no choice but to question the wisdom of an Obama presidency wherein even greater government involvement in the personal lives and businesses of the nation will occur.
Please note that I’m not saying McCain is the opposite – but he’s surely not as far as Obama is on that count and there is the mitigating factor of Palin that may provide something of a “common man” influence on McCain’s decisions. There would be no corresponding influence on an Obama administration.
Should you take it that far, then you should likewise consider that under Obama the US Supreme Court could end up packed with judges that held the majority in cases like the Kelo decision.
The Kelo decision allowed local government to confiscate private property and give it to another private party simply because they said they could use it in such a way that greater tax revenue would be generated for the government.
That decision was upheld by the “liberal” or “left wing” of the court, and was unsuccessfully opposed by the “conservative” or “right wing” of the court.
It’s pretty clear that the judges of the left are inclined to rule in favor of government over the individual, and judges on the right are inclined to rule in favor of the individual over the government.
If you value your rights, then the choice becomes pretty clear, even if it’s an imperfect choice.
Did Lewis Diuguid not get the word? Obama belonging to a racist church for 20 years has made the world safe for racism.
That being the case, who cares about code words?
Martin Luther King is the outlier here; he was not a socialist, although he expressed sympathies. For example, King told his staff in 1966:
There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.
the menshiviks were democratic socialism.. which is another word for COMMUNISM..
how can you put up a quote like that, and say he wasnt socialist?
do me a favor… go read the highander school history. king, parks and seeger attended it and it was closed down for communist subversion. the people running it planted bombs and commited lynchings giving the south the reputation, and creating the civil rights movement to create a false history, leading up to opportunities and a permanent disharmony.
then look up operation pandora, from section A. they did similar in NY and other areas.
so you dont know that war socialism/communism was lenin… peaceful changing of the stae into a communist totalitarian state was menshiviks.
which is why russia has always referred to itself as a democracy!!!!
lack of history is driving me batty… in that someone can say something and in the total absene of information, make up a blind assertion to preserve the view of that person they ahve been told to have! (we are not permitted a view in which king was a subversive… )
[when you look up operation pandora, be careful, there is a lot of sites trying to make it a CIA thing. but it was SEcton A. a lot of this was to cover the story being released by the archive record.
here is an excerpt that covers the thing.
books.google.com/books?id=9TWUAQ7Xof8C&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=%22operation+pandora%22+++section+A&source=web&ots=LU6c2afiCF&sig=HjdP5966OdMGWk6fhvdrbBCIQos&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
on at least one occaision, the center ordered the use of explosives to exacerbate racial tensions in ny. on july 25th 1971, the head of the FCD (first north american depaertmen), anatoli tikhonovich kiryev, instructed the ny residency to proceed with operation pandora. the planting of delayued action explosives package in the “negro section of ny”. keryevs preferred target was one of the negro colleges. after the explsion the residency was ordered to make anonymoust phone calls to two or three black organizations, claiming that the explosion was the work of the jewish defense league.
[you can now go to the newspaper clippings and read how this worked…]
basically it was the scissors or hammer and anvil tactic… by controlling both sides of an argument, you control the whole side.
so you have your side secreatly plant bombs and do actions you can pin on your opponents, while coordinating someone like king as the otehr side. and the people are cut in half, or opposition is crushed between the hammer and the anvil.
reading the rest is a real eye opener…(and his work has led to lawsuits and tons of stuff before this was finally printed)
still think the same about martin luthor?
by the way, race tensions between the hasidim and other jewish communities, and the african community are still murderously high thanks to these false actions at destabilization.
Seanithan: One of the biggest and best reasons to vote for McCain/Palin is for divided government to act as a check on the otherwise-unbridled power of Pelosi, Reid, and company. See this.
Hmm. Well I agree on economic issues for the most part as well as lack of governmental control, but I can’t agree with the foreign policies of McCain/Palin.
I also don’t understand how the Repubs can bash Obama for lack of experience when they have Palin on their ticket. It seems like a ridiculous sentiment to me.
Also, if you want to get into the area of freedoms than how about the freedom to choose to get an abortion?
Your thoughts.
Seanithan: none of what you have said addresses the issue of my previously-stated support for divided government.
However, let me also point out that Palin has far more executive experience than Obama, and she is the VP candidate rather than the President. VPs traditionally have much less experience than Presidents.
As for foreign policy, read any of my posts on Iraq and McCain.
Abortion: Palin has gone on record many times as saying she believes abortion laws should be made by states and not by the federal government. This would leave the states free to do what they wish. She is not for abolishing abortion, and she has said so. What’s more, most legal experts agree that Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned even with a more conservative court.
Pingback:Bent Notes » Blog Archive » Counting on your resolve to be ignorant
Seanithan,
While neo has thoroughly addressed the abortion and experience issues in her own response, I’m more curious as to what facets of the foreign policy of an Obama administration you think would be superior to that of a McCain administration – and why?
After all, Obama has stated a willingness to invade a nuclear armed Pakistan, and talk at the presidential level without preconditions with the likes of the Iranian president (something Kissenger even stated was a bad idea) – things that are kind of hard to defend.
Seanithan, I refer you to my earlier post.
Obama is a classic Statist and proudly proclaims himself to be such (although he does not use that word. Statists have now concocted a new label called Progressive, because it sounds–well so progressive and benign).
You indicate that you are young, but have not revealed your education level. I will assume a reasonable knowledge of 20th century history, so I ask you to review the records of various Statist governments and reflect on how you thought they served their populations. I have a few in mind. Nazi Germany; Imperial Japan; Fascist Italy; the Soviet Union; Cuba under Castro; The People’s Republic of China; North Korea. To bring the list up to the present consider Zimbawe; and keep an eye on Venezuela.
Now, I admit that John McCain like most of our present national politicians is a Statist, although to a much lesser degree than Obama. Sarah Palin is probably the least Statist of the four on the ticket.
Whoever is lecturing you on the issue of the candidate’s experience is intellectually dishonest. Obama, if elected, will be President on 1/20/09. It is simply fallacious to compare his experience to that of Sarah Palin who may, or may not, become President at sometime in the next four years–and there is no particular reason to believe that she will. I forget my rules of logic, but there must be one that covers that beaut. (Confession: I am a year older than McCain and I expect to live at least four more years)
Beyond experience, one must look at accomplishments to judge future performance. Palin has documented accomplishments. Obama’s?
Biden has some accomplishments to show for 6 Senate terms. As Chairman of the Judicial Committee, he gave us the Bork and Thomas judicial hearings which completely poisoned the well on the process.
You expressed interest in foreign policy, so we should note that Biden, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and who was to be Obama’s foreign policy guru, advocated a plan to divide Iraq into three unsustainable parts. Aside from the completely unworkable nature of the plan, it demonstrates a level of hubris that George W. Bush never approached, and McCain certainly would not; i.e., that after the U.S. invades the country to overthrow a tyranncial and threatening regime we arbitrarily redraw its boundaries, and foricibly relocate significant portions of the population in accordance with our scheme. That kind of scheme was tried in many places after both WWI and WWII. Often with disasterous results. You have to wonder what mischief a man who would advocate something like that would create if he actually had some power or influence.
Seanithan Says:
“I also don’t understand how the Repubs can bash Obama for lack of experience when they have Palin on their ticket. It seems like a ridiculous sentiment to me.”
Yeah, that makes sense. She has little experience but more than Obama as an exec so vote for Obama…
“Also, if you want to get into the area of freedoms than how about the freedom to choose to get an abortion?”
I’m pro choice but I feel safe voting for them. Some day a few states may make it illegal. Others will allow out of state people to have abortions. End of the world. Actually, the precident of the supreme court opting to be a more equal than the other branches seems more dangerous [to let stand] than overturning Roe.
Neo : Yes, I didn’t address that issue. I was at work and didn’t have time to give the article my full attention, and yes it seems that would be a problem.
Abortion: Agree with giving states the right for such things, in fact I agree with giving states more rights overall.
I disagree that Palin has more experience than Obama. I see you said “executive” experience as though that makes a difference. She was a mayor and governor and BAD ones at that. I know you disagree but I have friends who lives in Wasilla when she was in control and they have told me some horror stories about her (backed up by facts, news articles etc) so I’m not going to agree in any way that Palin is more experienced than Obama. You’re right, she’s only running for VP and him Prez but nonetheless..
Scottie: I’m assuming you were one of the people watching the debate where Obama said he would “go into” Pakistan if they were found to be harboring Al Qaeda cells and the government was found to be doing nothing about it. He never said about invading the country itself, nor attacking it’s people. Yet TWICE during the debates McCain said “Senator Obama wants to attack Pakistan” and twice Obama clearly stated that was not what he said at all. So that argument is moot.
As for the argument about sitting down with leaders such as the Iranian president without preconditions.. personally I see no harm in it. Honestly, talking with people seems like a GREAT idea to me. Exchanging ideas and thoughts is actually something that seems to progress relationships rather than sit back and harbor resentment against each other. Also, talking to them does not in any way admit some sort of strange defeat. So I disagree on that point as well.
Oldflyer: I understand what you’re saying but I think your tactic involves a bit of scare-mongering. I don’t believe if Obama is elected the United States will drift into a similar state of the previous nations you mentioned.
Once again I agree that yes, Palin is running for VP, Obama for President and the only reason people question McCain’s life expectancy is his reported bad health.
I honestly feel, though, that McCain chose Palin as a running mate largely due to the fact that she’s a woman and was attempting the female vote. I think it was a ridiculous decision to choose HER of all people in the US to select as a running mate. There HAVE to be more qualified candidates.
As far as Palin’s accomplishments, that must be a joke. The fact that you’re all backing her as if she’s actually a prime candidate is terrifying. I’d understand if you’re voting based on the policies, or based on the fact that you don’t like Obama, or based on ANY fact other than “Palin is a great VP candidate”.
PLEASE tell me you don’t think she’s the best one for the job.
Biden was stupid to have advocated such a plan, though the current plan is almost as bad and there have been no talks on the Republican side as to what exactly the future plan IS. Besides constantly insisting that we’ve already won (numerous times during the debates) which is baffling to me. We also won Vietnam, right?
Thomass: I think I answered your questions in responses to others.
Seanithan, it is clear your mind is made up. Somehow I had the impression you were looking for opinion or information.
You kind of give yourself away by citing alleged friends in Wasilla who tell you horror stories. The problem is that dozens of “investigators” have descended on Wasilla looking for dirt and they dug up very little. Nice try, won’t sell.
Obama is proud of being a Statist. What we don’t know, because he has no record, is to what degree he will move in that direction if given unchecked power. He has given a few indications through his radical associations (yes I said it), his writings and the bits of truth that he has let slip during the campaign, that it could be fairly extreme. So, I do not think that I engaged in fear mongering by citing a few Statist regimes from both extremes of the political spectrum (notice that each extreme seems to lead to the same point; i.e., absolute Statist control).
Well, nice visiting with you. Good night.
Haha, I actually am looking for opinion and information. I don’t understand how stating mine somehow doesn’t allow you to state yours (or refute mine). I do think you engaged in fear mongering, because I think it’s very unlikely that Obama would make such a move (especially in 4 years, as if that move was a motive of his. Of this you said, you have no idea because there is no record to be checked on the matter) So you’re basically stating the worst that could happen.
The fact that you’re claiming that I’m making up friends who lived in Wasilla is completely ridiculous.
Basically the fact that I don’t agree with you on some issues has led you to completely shut down. What the hell is that? Where’s the discussion if people aren’t allowed to have opposing viewpoints?
We are not having a discussion.
I cited that the media and the dems have spent extensive and well documented effort to turn up dirt in Wasilla. You say you have friends who have dirt–but have not made it public. So name them and have them come on the forum and tell their horror stories. Why aren’t they on MSNBC? They would love to have them.
Of course I do not know what Obama will do. But I have ample cause for worry–and so do the American people. I cited that there is enough evidence in his meagre history to suspect that he could move toward extremes. He has a pattern of radical relationships; his writing contains evidence of radical thinking; he has indicated that the tax code–that is the power of the state to confiscate private wealth– should be used for social engineering that he approves; his surrogates have tried to silence people who would publicly speak against him (Kurtz in Chicago; threats of prosecution by the attorney general in Missouri) and he has never repudiated those activities; other surrogates have been charged with or are under investigation for voter fraud (ACORN. Despite his claims to the contrary he was employed as an Attorney and a Instructor in their organization and his campaign funneled $800,000 to them The Woods fund which he helped control funneled another $200,000). Against this evidence you state that you doubt that his motivation is to move the country more sharply Statist. Is that all you have to offer?
I haven’t shut down. But you are offering nothing but sophist opinion in the face of fact.
Seanithan: to answer one of your earlier questions, it’s not necessary that I think Palin the best possible running mate McCain could have chosen, I just think she needs to be better than the opposition.
I think McCain chose her for a host of very good reasons, only one of which was the fact that she was a woman: her appeal to the conservative base and her reformer record are the two chief reasons, as well as her being a quick study (which she most definitely is).
The bottom line for me (besides the part about wanting divided government) is that McCain is far more competent than Obama, and Palin is far more competent than Biden. As for McCain’s life expectancy, it’s excellent (see this and this to learn that the life expectancy of a man his age is 12 years, that he had no melanoma spread to the lymph nodes, and that since eight years have passed since his melanoma surgery without a recurrence his chances of a recurrence now are very low). For that matter, Obama has refused to release his complete health records, both of his parents died young, and he’s a smoker.
Neo, I was with a woman who passed away at age 49 on July 08, 2006 from lung cancer. She smoked.
Obama’s mother passed away relatively young and John’s mother is spritely and in her 90’s.
Seanithan,
You stated the following:
“He never said about invading the country itself, nor attacking it’s people.”
Here is exactly what Obama stated:
“When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won,……The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Sounds like an invasion to me.
War is not just sitting outside of another nation’s borders and lobbing missiles – it’s defeating them and taking over their territory, and for that you need boots on the ground and you have to hold the territory you have just overrun.
That means an invasion.
Of course, you could always take the word of the other democrats for what they thought Obama meant. Here are a few quotes:
“It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power,”
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) – of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fame….but that’s another issue.
“My international experience tells me that we should address this issue with tough diplomacy first with Musharraf and then leave the military option as a last resort,”
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
“The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it,”
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.)
Ok, the last one may be why Biden was seen by Obama as a good fit for VP – still, if you don’t like the idea of war then both Obama and Biden ought to be scaring the hell out of you with the statements they’re making. It’s sounds almost like he’s telegraphing now that he plans a 3rd simultaneous war in Pakistan if he becomes president!
If that happens, you can fully expect talk of a military draft to come up as the military has been stretched over the past few years.
Of course, if you are as young as others have surmised, and a draft is instituted, then you could end up with pointy-end-first experience in diplomacy.
Do you really want to support a man who is already stating fairly plainly that he plans to start yet another war?
Regarding talking with our avowed enemies:
“As for the argument about sitting down with leaders such as the Iranian president without preconditions.. personally I see no harm in it. Honestly, talking with people seems like a GREAT idea to me. Exchanging ideas and thoughts is actually something that seems to progress relationships rather than sit back and harbor resentment against each other. Also, talking to them does not in any way admit some sort of strange defeat. So I disagree on that point as well.”
This is a great approach to a class project, but in the real world there are grave consequences to such naivete.
Here is what Kissinger stated after the presidential debate wherein Obama lied regarding Kissinger’s stance on the matter:
“Sen. McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the presidential level,”
“My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Sen. John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”
I think I’ll take Kissinger’s experience in foreign policy over Obama’s – or Biden’s – any day.
And I’ll take my own common sense that talking to people gets more done than not.
Kissinger is a fucking nut, but also he said this..
“Most foreign policies that history has marked highly, in whatever country, have been originated by leaders who were opposed by experts.”
My friends do exist and this “dirt” was released. I read it on a few news sources, but I can’t find them now. It was a while back and I don’t remember where they were.
Anyways, like I said regarding Pakistan…
He said if (and only if) Al Qaeda is in our sights in Pakistan and the Pakistani government refuses to act/cooperate we will ONLY THEN enter Pakistan and ONLY THEN attack ONLY the Al Qaeda forces that are existing there. I don’t see a problem with that.
Neo: I don’t think he’s more competent at all. I’ve heard no policy from him at all, just repeated insults. I see him attempt to explain policy but as soon as that starts he pauses to make more insults. Honestly watching the debates was painful. Questions were rarely answered on the repub side.
When a party stoops to non-stop personal attacks in place of actual debate I find it hard to find that person credible.
The Biden quote just states that he agrees with Obama’s statement but says it’s not the place to talk about it. Which is his opinion.
Obama said that we’d address the issue with tough diplomacy first before taking military action. That’s what he meant by “if Pakistan doesn’t cooperate with us in the capture of Al Qaeda” (im paraphrasing). He’s basically saying that if they knowingly harbor terrorists that we will cross their boundaries to eliminate them. Once again, this makes sense to me.
Seanithan,
Obama never qualified his statement with any “IF” – I gave you the exact quote, but instead of admitting you have been misled (or are deliberately attempting to mislead) you continue to qualify your statements (and supposed quotes of Obama) with one baseless new iteration after another.
If there is such a thing as an unbiased voter around here, they would do well to observe your behaviour closely so they can identify and discount such iterative arguments in the future.
Oh, and what passes for “common sense” depends entirely on one’s viewpoint – again, your post being an object lesson. I think I’ll stick with Kissinger on this one….
There are some commenters here, aside from neo, who should perhaps write a book. I have never been an eloquent writer, ever been able to put my thoughts just right. Many in here are and do. This is a fine blog.
“And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”
That is the exact quote from the 2nd Presidential election, taken from CNN.com. There’s an if there, I’m pretty sure.
I realize common sense depends on one viewpoint, thus I’m stating mine. I didn’t presume to speak for the world.
election = debate, sorry.
ok, living in europe, and being a “european socialist” myself i can categorically state that Obama is not a Socialist.
Socialists believe in state healthcare and education – obama does not, obama believes in health insurance where the government pays for treatment in a mix of facilities and private education as part of a capitalist economy.
Socialists believe in a mixed economy (as opposed to Communists who beleieve in total government/public ownership) where a combination of production/resources/transit/energy are owned and operated by the government on behalf of the public. Obama – as far as i am aware, is not in favour of nationalising the energy industries/natural resources or means of production in the united states.
What Obama is guilty of is favouring a progressive tax system – which even (small c) Conservative parties in the majority of Europe are in support of, although by many standards most of the centre-right parties in Europe (using our spectrum) would be Democrat affiliates using the American spectrum.
But – Obama is not a socialist, end of story – support of progressive taxation is not the sole tenat of socialism.
Well, I wasn’t in a position these past couple of days to pay close attention to this site so I almost missed this last comment – but I gotta respond one last time.
Seanithan,
The quote you gave was from the second presidential debate – by your own admission.
That particular debate took place on Oct. 7, 2008 I believe?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN07477465
The quote I gave was from the democrat primary debates – from around August 1, 2007.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html
Again, it’s an iterative argument where initial statements are “massaged” over time to change the initial meaning to something more palatable.
I’m done stirring this particular pot now….
I’m piling in late here, but I just blogged about an even more absurd reference to racial code, on a Slate podcast:
“A lot of voters… when you talk about experience with respect to Obama, that’s code for people’s continuing uncomfortableness about his race… a lot of times when people talk about worries about his experience, they’re really touching against their difficulty with the fact that he’s an African-American.”
in order to have good busines practice, good labor relations is very important.,,-
labor relations must be maintained in a very positive level among the corpoarte owners and employees-*”
Nice try, but you completely omit the CONCLUSION. Seems a bit inportamt if you want to argue tax policy differences.C. Comparison of the Two PlansIn 2009, Senator Obama’s plan would reduce the effective marginal tax rate for far more households than would the McCain plan. This is true both overall, and for all income classes….In fact, the Obama plan would raise marginal rates for about three-quarters of taxpayers making more than $1 million whereas the McCain plan would leave rates unchanged for 95 percent of those taxpayers (figure 2). Overall, the Obama plan would raise EMTRs for 15 percent of taxpayers, compared with only 1 percent for the McCain plan.I also note they make no mention of taxing health care benefits as McCain has proposed.