Is Obama really a Socialist?

[Ordr]

How would you categorize him, Mammon?

[01503]

How would you categorize him, Mammon?

Judging from that interview, I'd call him a liar.

But I'd have to say he's a pragmatist more than anything.

[Ordr]

Judging from that interview, I'd call him a liar.

But I'd have to say he's a pragmatist more than anything.

You can't be a good pragmatist if you're not a liar .

[01503]

You can't be a good pragmatist if you're not a liar .

And you can't be a successful pragmatist if you're not a good liar.

[fletch]

Judging from that interview, I'd call him a liar.

I dont think Obama is a liar, its worse than that. He actually believes his own rhetoric. What you have in Obama is a guy who believes that if he gathers around him some of the best minds, together, they can run the economy from a central location. He plans to succeed where all others have failed.

When he says something like "Look. I am a pro-growth, free market guy. I love the market." He's not lying, but then again, hes not talking about the free market, hes talking about what we have now--a mixed economy. That is what he loves. And he will grow to love it even more as he adds greater and greater government intrusion into the mix.

[Ordr]

I dont think Obama is a liar, its worse than that. He actually believes his own rhetoric.

I disagree. He changes his position so rapidly that it would be very hard to believe that he thinks what he says is the truth.

That said, however; I do believe he is completely content with lying, as his pragmatism allows him to say and do whatever is necessary to get through that particular moment in time.

[khaight]

When he says something like "Look. I am a pro-growth, free market guy. I love the market." He's not lying, but then again, hes not talking about the free market, hes talking about what we have now--a mixed economy. That is what he loves. And he will grow to love it even more as he adds greater and greater government intrusion into the mix.

When Obama says he's "pro-growth", I think he's telling the truth -- in a way. He wants the economy to grow, because that will give him access to more wealth to redistribute. But -- and this is key -- he also wants the people who make up the market to do as they're told. He doesn't see any conflict between those two desires. He wants to rule over a prosperous nation. The problem is that he can't have both -- he can't rule and have prosperity -- and when push comes to shove I think he and his cohorts would much rather rule a poor nation than liberate a rich one.

It should go without saying that his desire for economic growth -- even if genuine -- does not mean that he will implement the policies required to actually achieve it. I think George W. Bush genuinely wanted to make the United States safe from Islamic totalitarianism, but his basic ideas made it impossible for him to identify and execute the policies required to bring his desire to fruition. Obama is in the same boat. His desires aren't fundamental. His ideas are, and his ideas are awful.

Edited January 14, 2009 by khaight

[Thales]

When Obama says he's "pro-growth", I think he's telling the truth -- in a way. He wants the economy to grow, because that will give him access to more wealth to redistribute. But -- and this is key -- he also wants the people who make up the market to do as they're told. He doesn't see any conflict between those two desires. He wants to rule over a prosperous nation. The problem is that he can't have both -- he can't rule and have prosperity -- and when push comes to shove I think he and his cohorts would much rather rule a poor nation than liberate a rich one.

It's really hard to determine someone's motivations, but you are right that he has no problem with the concept of telling people what to do. Lots of his agenda, from his campaign website, was socialist, with no regard for our rights (I am my brother's keeper). The principle of rights will do little to stop him, nor the many people he selects for different positions in his administration, most of whom will be very left wing.

His pragmatism won't save us, it'll just make it easier for him to push the bad ideas, which includes quite a bit of postmodernism (witness his Science Advisor appointment).

[Ordr]

His pragmatism won't save us, it'll just make it easier for him to push the bad ideas, which includes quite a bit of postmodernism (witness his Science Advisor appointment).

...and his entire young, nihilistic constituency

[fletch]

I disagree. He changes his position so rapidly that it would be very hard to believe that he thinks what he says is the truth.

That said, however; I do believe he is completely content with lying, as his pragmatism allows him to say and do whatever is necessary to get through that particular moment in time.

A good example is the $3,000 tax credit that Obama promised during the campaign to give to businesses that hire new employees. That idea has been officially scrubed from the stimulus package. Obama let the idea die without comment. That does not mean that he was lying during the campaign when he promised to do it. He is just being pragmatic. Since he is not fixed to any particular course of action, he simply moves on to something else.

[gags]

It's really hard to determine someone's motivations, but you are right that he has no problem with the concept of telling people what to do.

Yes, I think he's primarily a statist who sees a governmental solution to every problem. Of course, this reliance on government means that he gets to call the shots. Like most leftists, he has tremendous contempt for his fellow man. People are simply too stupid to run their own lives, they need to be told what to do by the elites in government.

[agrippa1]

He is definitely an O'ist.

Obamaist, that is. Everything he has done in his adult life has been focused on advancing himself as quickly and as effortlessly as possible. He read one speech as a state Senator in 2004, and was anointed on the spot as the darling of the far left elite, and their candidate for President.

He has taken friends and positions that advanced him at every turn, and discarded them with vicious ease when they became liabilities to his ascension.

The question is not "what is Obama's ideology?" The proper questions are: "what is Obama's next goal?" and, "what policies and personalities must he embrace to reach it?"

Here's speculation:

I can imagine Obama is looking to skate through the next 4-8 years, with GWB, Congress and the American capitalist as his enduring scapegoats, and that his eye is, before he has even taken the office of the POTUS, on the next game: President of the world, or whatever name they dream up for that global body over the next few years. One necessary means to secure the creation of that office is to end the hope that America has historically given the people of the world. His policies promise to do exactly that, and GWB and Congress have given him a great start.

Welcome to the new world order.

Edited January 14, 2009 by agrippa1

[adrock3215]

Nope, not a socialist. It's hard to categorize him accurately. The best label I can think of is, as has been said above, pragmatist.

[aequalsa]

Anyway what I'm getting at is that I would like to be more educated on this issue. I'm asking anybody to present their reasons for why they think Obama’s political philosophy is that of socialist ideas.

"Socialist" is a term that, like "communist," has come to be a pejorative of sorts, that Obama's supporters do well to avoid. Instead, they argue out of a sense of language's purity that he does not fit the exact description of socialist, communist, or even fascist.

If I call him a communist, they will retort, "No, he doesn't believe in 'the common ownership of all means of production,' only some."

So I conclude, "Ah, he must be a socialist, then."

But oh, no, no. "He isn't a socialist," they correct, "He doesn't wish for government to own the means of production, only it's produce."

Then it occurs to me, "he must be a fascist then!"

"Absolutely not!" they cry. "He doesn't care about fostering a 'nationalistic sense of pride.' He's no Fascist."

"OK then," semantically weary, "You tell me, what is he?"

"Oh, why he's just a pragmatist."

"Phhewww! At least he is just a guy trying to do the right thing to move this country along. Maybe he's slightly misguided, occasionally, but he does want us to be better off and trial and error seems to be a decent way to figure things out. That's not so bad."

Now I am left trying to integrate the things I know about him with this sterile, mostly benign, term which is so vague that it could define almost anyone from Clinton to FDR(who it was applied to) to Mussolini to Kruschev. They all were "practical" men who made decisions and adjusted to their circumstances.

So instead of getting tied up with someone over what pigeon's hole is the most accurate, just describe what he believes.

He's a consciously rights opposing, government control of a majority of our income favoring, nationalizing the biggest parts of our biggest industries liking, wealth redistributing, doctor enslaving, military surrendering, 2nd amendment opposing, rabidly power-lusting, lying(hopefully), principle lacking, culturally relativistic, populistic ensnaring ideologue-IST and that, my friends is just what he has told us so far.

He has been in consistent opposition to everything that was ever good about this country. The only way that his administration won't be an unmitigated disaster is if he lied about every single thing he said to get elected. Which is very possible.

The semantic analysis bores me. We could just as easily claim that Ayn Rand was no capitalist since she didn't own any factories or means of production(except her pen, of course.) Ultimately the name we use(or do not use) to describe him is a rhetorical piece and not relevant, except in that it tells you a great deal about the person using the term. He is what he is regardless of what box he fits in, and what he is ain't good.

[Thales]

So instead of getting tied up with someone over what pigeon's hole is the most accurate, just describe what he believes.

He's a consciously rights opposing, government control of a majority of our income favoring, nationalizing the biggest parts of our biggest industries liking, wealth redistributing, doctor enslaving, military surrendering, 2nd amendment opposing, rabidly power-lusting, lying(hopefully), principle lacking, culturally relativistic, populistic ensnaring ideologue-IST and that, my friends is just what he has told us so far.

He has been in consistent opposition to everything that was ever good about this country. The only way that his administration won't be an unmitigated disaster is if he lied about every single thing he said to get elected. Which is very possible.

Well said!

The semantic analysis bores me. We could just as easily claim that Ayn Rand was no capitalist since she didn't own any factories or means of production(except her pen, of course.) Ultimately the name we use(or do not use) to describe him is a rhetorical piece and not relevant, except in that it tells you a great deal about the person using the term. He is what he is regardless of what box he fits in, and what he is ain't good.

Hey, this isn't mere "semantic analysis". We are trying to peg what he is. I believe he is pushing a socialist/postmodernist agenda, but that he is doing it in a wishy-washy way, so that he doesn't mind accepting non-socialist elements here and there. He presents a soft front for some very bad ideas, which makes it more likely that the bad ideas will get through and crush our liberties.

This is why I recommend the Tara Smith lecture on pragmatism on aynrand.org. Pragmatism is not harmless by any stretch.

[~Sophia~]

I would like to bring to your attention an excellent post, I just read, by Edward Cline Of Piracy and Politics

Edited January 15, 2009 by ~Sophia~

[aequalsa]

Well said!

Thanks!

Hey, this isn't mere "semantic analysis". We are trying to peg what he is. I believe he is pushing a socialist/postmodernist agenda, but that he is doing it in a wishy-washy way, so that he doesn't mind accepting non-socialist elements here and there. He presents a soft front for some very bad ideas, which makes it more likely that the bad ideas will get through and crush our liberties.

This is why I recommend the Tara Smith lecture on pragmatism on aynrand.org. Pragmatism is not harmless by any stretch.

I didn't mean to imply that it was not dangerous. Only that is sounds less harmful than socialist. Kinda gives him a free pass. I haven't heard that lecture but I would agree based on my own knowledge that pragmatism is more dangerous because it obfuscates real intentions and purposes so well.

[khaight]

I didn't mean to imply that it was not dangerous. Only that is sounds less harmful than socialist. Kinda gives him a free pass. I haven't heard that lecture but I would agree based on my own knowledge that pragmatism is more dangerous because it obfuscates real intentions and purposes so well.

You have to decide what purpose your identification is supposed to serve. If you are attempting to classify Obama for purposes of your own intellectual clarity, then there is no need to settle on a single term and there is no reason to worry about how other people will react to your classification in discussion. Obama may well be, say, a fascist and a pragmatist. The two are not mutually exclusive, c.f. Peikoff's discussion of Naziism and pragmatism in The Ominous Parallels.

On the other hand, if your purpose is to come up with a defensible and pejorative label for purposes of rhetoric and debate, then "pragmatist" is clearly inappropriate because most people these days consider it a compliment rather than the insult it should be. I've been using 'fascist' for this purpose, but haven't yet engaged in discussion with any hard-core Obama supporters. 'Socialist' probably isn't good because it's been used too much. His defenders have well-honed rebuttals, and you'll wind up ratholing over trivial concrete details. If 'fascist' is too emotionally charged, try 'statist' or 'collectivist'.

[dadmonson]

This is sorta off topic but I read somewhere that if we continue down the unprincipled path that we are on that eventually we will have no republican party left only the Democrats. Democrats will then split into communists and socialists though and eventually the communists will win out and you can make a pretty good guess at what happens next...

It made it seem like vice trumps virtue all the time. Why is that? And did they mean that their literally would be no Republican party?

[Zip]

This is sorta off topic but I read somewhere that if we continue down the unprincipled path that we are on that eventually we will have no republican party left only the Democrats. Democrats will then split into communists and socialists though and eventually the communists will win out and you can make a pretty good guess at what happens next...

It made it seem like vice trumps virtue all the time. Why is that? And did they mean that their literally would be no Republican party?

I doubt it would happen. I mean look at Canada, with 4 left leaning/socialist parties we still have a viable right of center alternative.

You'd have to kill off a whole lot of conservatives in the USA for there to be no republican party...

And in some cases I do mean kill.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Zip

[Maximus]

Just look at the red state/blue state map, or, as it was parodied once "Jesusland." Lot's o guns, boys.

[Ordr]

I would like to bring to your attention an excellent post, I just read, by Edward Cline Of Piracy and Politics

Excellent posting. Cline really outdid himself, which is a pretty hard thing to do.

[khaight]

This is sorta off topic but I read somewhere that if we continue down the unprincipled path that we are on that eventually we will have no republican party left only the Democrats. Democrats will then split into communists and socialists though and eventually the communists will win out and you can make a pretty good guess at what happens next...

I would argue that this has already happened. Contrast the views of the two major parties today with their views 40 years ago. By that standard, the 1960's Democrats have turned into the socialists, and the 1960's Republicans have turned into the 1960's Democrats.

It made it seem like vice trumps virtue all the time. Why is that?

Compromise and pragmatism. A good discussion of why can be found in Leonard Peikoff's speech "Why Should One Act On Principle?", currently available for free download to registered users of ARI's web site.

[~Sophia~]

The article

Incoming White House energy-environment czar Carol Browner was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International. While that revelation has been ignored by the mainstream media and blithely dismissed by her supporters, you may soon be paying the cost of Browner’s political beliefs in your electricity bill.

Socialist International is precisely what it sounds like -- a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause. Founded in 1951, its organizing document rails against capitalism, asserting that it “has been incapable of satisfying the elementary needs of the world’s population … unable to function without devastating crises and mass unemployment … produced social insecurity and glaring contrasts between rich and poor … [and] resorted to imperialist expansion and colonial exploitation.…” Socialist International also asserts, “In some countries, powerful capitalist groups helped the barbarism of the past to raise its head again in the form of Fascism and Nazism.” So Socialist International at least partly blames Adolph Hitler on capitalism.

According to its own principles, Socialist International favors the nationalization of industry, is skeptical of the benefits of economic growth and wants to establish a more “equitable international economic order.” In true Marxist form, it asserts that, “The concentration of economic power in few private hands must be replaced by a different order in which each person is entitled -- as citizen, consumer or wage-earner -- to influence the direction and distribution of production, the shaping of the means of production, and the conditions of working life.”

Edited January 16, 2009 by ~Sophia~

[Ordr]

The article

How was this not discovered sooner? She was appointed in November!

How utterly depressing...

Edit: I'm not sure why I'm asking why it wasn't discovered...even if it was, it's not like it would have mattered to his voters.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Ordr