I would love some insight from my informed and savvy readers: Since when is it considered “naive” to ask questions about the economic policy of a political candidate?
Yes, I have recently been accused of this offense in regard to my discussion of Barack Obama’s apparent socialist agenda for this country. I have been accused of “demonizing” the word socialist in “an attempt to equate it with Marxism.” (Yes, folks, add yet another word to the list of no-no’s that one cannot use when discussing Barack Obama.) By the way, I think this is the first time in history that someone has been challenged for uttering the word “socialist” and “Marxist” in the same sentence. It’s such a stretch, I know.
I simply undertook this personal investigation of Barack Obama’s now infamous response to Joe the plumber (“I’m going to spread the wealth around”) in order to further inform myself about what might possibly be in store for this country should Obama win this election. I’m so naive. Looking at the whole picture, looking at the outright Communists that Obama has surrounded himself for years (Alinsky, Chomsky, Frank Marshall Davis, Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, etc…) I started to think, “Hey, Obama seems to envision this country as a socialist one.” I’m so naive. Obama, with all his talk about what HE is going to do with my money, your money, and Joe the plumber’s money, with all his talk about income redistribution, made me really start to think, “Hey, this guy sounds like a socialist.” I’m so naive!
Obama supporters and the media have completely ignored this issue, and make it a non-issue by either
a) not investigating it further
b) villifying those of us for saying the word “socialist” in the same sentence as “Marxist,” saying we’re “red-baiting” or simply dismissing us as racist
c) saying it’s irrelevant (because Sarah Palin’s wardrobe is so much more important)
d) being so in love with Obama that they wouldn’t care if he put on a tutu and started singing about the “Motherland”
e) not really knowing what what socialism, communism, or Marxism are or
f) rooting for Obama because they want capitalism obliterated themselves and fervently hope the allegations are true
They also dismiss the question as naive because this country “already has socialist policies.” Yes, we do. And many of us didn’t want those policies introduced either. As Milton Friedman once said, “There is no such thing as a ‘temporary’ government program.” Once they’re here, it’s nearly impossible to get rid of them. Why is it naive to NOT WANT EVEN MORE SOCIALISM?
Yes, there is a continuum. Let’s put communism on one end and capitalism is on the other. The US is somewhere in the middle, but I would argue that it’s much closer to the “capitalism” end. But think of this: If someone wanted to rid the USA of capitalism, they’d have to start somewhere, right? Obama seems to want to start us down that road, and many people are concerned about it, and are worried that he doesn’t just want to stop at one or two standard deviations over, but all the way.
I thought this post by The Federalist did a commendable job in not only discussing the accuracy of applying the term “socialist” to Obama, but also in explaining in an understandable way to those of us who are not economists the differences between socialist and capitalist tax systems. (See the author’s first response in comments.)
No, it is not naive to want some more details about Obama’s wealth distribution schemes. It is naive not to care.