Jim Stillman
Nevar
We Americans are all
September 16th 2009 14:59
Yep, that's what we believe, that's what we are. Some of us deny it, some don't understand it, but all of us, in our heart of hearts, are thrilled to reap the rewards and benefits of socialism.
So let's start working on the real issues.
Many of the least offensive signs held by those persuaded by a few GOP ideologues accuse President Obama as being a “socialist”. Neither he nor his programs are fairly characterized as “socialist” if the classical definition is utilized. Why are many otherwise thoughtful Americans -- mostly older, overwhelmingly white -- so afraid of “socialism” and, by extension, “socialized medicine”?
What socialism is; forget the silly signs and foolish slogans.
One explanation is that they don’t actually know what socialism is, namely central economic planning and the public ownership and/or control of the major means of production, factories, mines and the like, for the benefit of the public at large. There is no one not in the lunatic fringe that seriously believes that President Obama, and by extension, liberals and Democrats really believe that there is an attempt to seize and own all factories.
Another is that many older Americans have vivid memories of the cold war and the autocratic and tyrannical, but not really socialistic or communistic, U.S.S.R. (the second “S” standing for “socialist”).
(Parenthetically, it is remarkable that at the height of the cold war a limited form of socialized medicine-- Medicare -- was enacted over the objections of the American Medical Association and the insurance industry. One difference, today, is that recent polls reflect a strong support by physicians of a single-payer or public option in health care reform efforts; the insurance industry still puts its mouth and lobbyists where its money is.)
I have written elsewhere that the purest form of socialism-communism is in the American family. Mom and Dad work according to their best abilities to produce family wealth, that is, for the benefit of the family, i.e., the public. The children, the “public” in my not perfect analogy, produce nothing of value but, nonetheless, take according to their needs. That, my friends, is straight out of Marxian theory!
I find it odd that protesters carry signs using “socialism” as a curse, whereas most Americans, including many of these critics, are strong supporters of socialism, even if unaware and will not dare utter the word.
Does anyone truly object to at least two concepts that enjoy overwhelming popular support despite being government owned and operated?
The first is the public schools. Massachusetts in the 19th century pioneered the project of creating publicly funded schools for every child in the state. The idea caught on widely and in less than a generation or two had been adopted by every state in the Union. No Child Left Behind, endorsed by a conservative administration, is the most recent innovation of this huge, centralized socialist project. There was and is an alternative to publically owned and operated free schools, universally available to every child: private parochial and secular schools but the public has chosen the public option.
The second example is the highways. Back at the early days of the automotive industry, Henry Ford was asked to help in the building of a private highway system but he declined to invest and warned that the potential investors not create the precedent of private road ownership — much better to let the government pay. For a century now, governments — state and federal — have built an astonishing network of utterly “socialist” highways throughout the country. So far as I know, no one has objected to driving along them for that reason. As a matter of fact, Florida, in an effort to reduce its debt and obligations has been toying with the idea of privately owned toll roads and highways; voters have been underwhelmed by the prospect.
There are several other remarkable things about the “S” label being attached to the 2009 Democrats. First there has not been a viable socialist movement in the United States for years, not since that of Eugene Debs 100 years ago. Since then the Soviet Union has gone, the cold war is over, the Berlin Wall has fallen, and capitalist China is our No. 1 industrial competitor. Against such a political landscape, what meaning could the phrase “socialism” have even as an epithet? With all due respect due many sincere, but unknowledgeable, protesters, there is no possible rationale to the use of the word as a curse.
In defense of those who accuse Democrats as being “socialists”, I have to note that the putting the “S” label on progressives in the United States has a long history that, in a way, made some sort of sense in the 19th century. Supporters of unrestricted capitalism looked upon child labor laws, minimum wage statutes, anti-monopoly laws and even occupational safety requirements in mines and factories as limits on corporation actions. To a great extent, they were correct but the public, as a whole, wanted to impose health, safety and other limits on the unfettered activities of large corporations. The New Deal and its enactment of social security was, at the time, condemned, as were the Fair Deal’s Medicare and, even, the enactment of civil rights and voters’ protection laws, all upon the basis of being “foreign”, un-American, collectivism and socialism. So, too, universal access to health care, present in capitalistic nations throughout the world is condemned for the same reason.
So if “socialism” is nothing more than a word designed and used, successfully, to stir the base, is there no issue or conflict that can be rationally discussed?
Sure there is, but the demagogues find reality too subtle and difficult to write on signs. It is far easier to have a poster that reads, as one did, “Obamacare should be buried with Kennedy” or “Obama = Hitler”, the latter confusing socialism and fascism. What is the issue that is too difficult to discuss? The role of central government in protecting certain interests and the identifying those protected interests.
We can and should be discussing this and not whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya, hates white people or whether Michelle Obama should be in her garden with her children while wearing shorts.
Many modern conservatives misunderstand the historical role of the role of the state in American history. They correctly note the huge growth in government activity since the mid-19th century and accurately note that the enlarged governmental role has stripped Americans of their individualism and self-reliance, the focus of the state’s activities has been subsidizing and promoting “private” enterprise during much of that time.
Without government support and growth, the expansion of the railroads and the West could not have occurred. Although Republican business interests’ plead to shrink the size of government, a unifying theme of political experience has been the government’s growing intervention in the market on behalf of the business community.
For a few years, however, as a result of the Depression and World War II and the latter’s aftermath, the Federal government expanded its responsibilities to include working people as well as business. It has been noted by economist-historians that between the end of World War II and the start of the 1970’s, while business grew drastically, income inequality declined significantly for Americans while posing no threat to the nation’s wealthiest. In the following years a return to uniformly pro-business policies promoted a significant rise in income inequality with the top 1 % of all incomes enjoying the largest percentiles of growth. This too is a direct result of government’s beneficence to the private sector.
The issue that we have to discuss is far more complex than whether Barack Obama is a socialist. I would submit the question to be discussed is on behalf of whose interests government intervenes. When the government assists business by bailing out the financial markets — as it often should — it is called supporting the market; when government helps regular folks, as with health care reform, it stirs up fears of something called “socialism.”
One of my favorite GOP presidents, Theodore Roosevelt understood the vital role of American individualism and citizenship, but, he argued in 1910, when human rights are in conflict with property rights,
Some today would call this socialism.
And I have a sneaky feeling that many of my friends who call themselves “conservatives” would agree. But at least we can argue over a real issue, not a phony one.
So let's start working on the real issues.
Many of the least offensive signs held by those persuaded by a few GOP ideologues accuse President Obama as being a “socialist”. Neither he nor his programs are fairly characterized as “socialist” if the classical definition is utilized. Why are many otherwise thoughtful Americans -- mostly older, overwhelmingly white -- so afraid of “socialism” and, by extension, “socialized medicine”?
What socialism is; forget the silly signs and foolish slogans.
One explanation is that they don’t actually know what socialism is, namely central economic planning and the public ownership and/or control of the major means of production, factories, mines and the like, for the benefit of the public at large. There is no one not in the lunatic fringe that seriously believes that President Obama, and by extension, liberals and Democrats really believe that there is an attempt to seize and own all factories.
Another is that many older Americans have vivid memories of the cold war and the autocratic and tyrannical, but not really socialistic or communistic, U.S.S.R. (the second “S” standing for “socialist”).
(Parenthetically, it is remarkable that at the height of the cold war a limited form of socialized medicine-- Medicare -- was enacted over the objections of the American Medical Association and the insurance industry. One difference, today, is that recent polls reflect a strong support by physicians of a single-payer or public option in health care reform efforts; the insurance industry still puts its mouth and lobbyists where its money is.)
I have written elsewhere that the purest form of socialism-communism is in the American family. Mom and Dad work according to their best abilities to produce family wealth, that is, for the benefit of the family, i.e., the public. The children, the “public” in my not perfect analogy, produce nothing of value but, nonetheless, take according to their needs. That, my friends, is straight out of Marxian theory!
I find it odd that protesters carry signs using “socialism” as a curse, whereas most Americans, including many of these critics, are strong supporters of socialism, even if unaware and will not dare utter the word.
Does anyone truly object to at least two concepts that enjoy overwhelming popular support despite being government owned and operated?
The first is the public schools. Massachusetts in the 19th century pioneered the project of creating publicly funded schools for every child in the state. The idea caught on widely and in less than a generation or two had been adopted by every state in the Union. No Child Left Behind, endorsed by a conservative administration, is the most recent innovation of this huge, centralized socialist project. There was and is an alternative to publically owned and operated free schools, universally available to every child: private parochial and secular schools but the public has chosen the public option.
The second example is the highways. Back at the early days of the automotive industry, Henry Ford was asked to help in the building of a private highway system but he declined to invest and warned that the potential investors not create the precedent of private road ownership — much better to let the government pay. For a century now, governments — state and federal — have built an astonishing network of utterly “socialist” highways throughout the country. So far as I know, no one has objected to driving along them for that reason. As a matter of fact, Florida, in an effort to reduce its debt and obligations has been toying with the idea of privately owned toll roads and highways; voters have been underwhelmed by the prospect.
There are several other remarkable things about the “S” label being attached to the 2009 Democrats. First there has not been a viable socialist movement in the United States for years, not since that of Eugene Debs 100 years ago. Since then the Soviet Union has gone, the cold war is over, the Berlin Wall has fallen, and capitalist China is our No. 1 industrial competitor. Against such a political landscape, what meaning could the phrase “socialism” have even as an epithet? With all due respect due many sincere, but unknowledgeable, protesters, there is no possible rationale to the use of the word as a curse.
In defense of those who accuse Democrats as being “socialists”, I have to note that the putting the “S” label on progressives in the United States has a long history that, in a way, made some sort of sense in the 19th century. Supporters of unrestricted capitalism looked upon child labor laws, minimum wage statutes, anti-monopoly laws and even occupational safety requirements in mines and factories as limits on corporation actions. To a great extent, they were correct but the public, as a whole, wanted to impose health, safety and other limits on the unfettered activities of large corporations. The New Deal and its enactment of social security was, at the time, condemned, as were the Fair Deal’s Medicare and, even, the enactment of civil rights and voters’ protection laws, all upon the basis of being “foreign”, un-American, collectivism and socialism. So, too, universal access to health care, present in capitalistic nations throughout the world is condemned for the same reason.
So if “socialism” is nothing more than a word designed and used, successfully, to stir the base, is there no issue or conflict that can be rationally discussed?
Sure there is, but the demagogues find reality too subtle and difficult to write on signs. It is far easier to have a poster that reads, as one did, “Obamacare should be buried with Kennedy” or “Obama = Hitler”, the latter confusing socialism and fascism. What is the issue that is too difficult to discuss? The role of central government in protecting certain interests and the identifying those protected interests.
We can and should be discussing this and not whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya, hates white people or whether Michelle Obama should be in her garden with her children while wearing shorts.
Many modern conservatives misunderstand the historical role of the role of the state in American history. They correctly note the huge growth in government activity since the mid-19th century and accurately note that the enlarged governmental role has stripped Americans of their individualism and self-reliance, the focus of the state’s activities has been subsidizing and promoting “private” enterprise during much of that time.
Without government support and growth, the expansion of the railroads and the West could not have occurred. Although Republican business interests’ plead to shrink the size of government, a unifying theme of political experience has been the government’s growing intervention in the market on behalf of the business community.
For a few years, however, as a result of the Depression and World War II and the latter’s aftermath, the Federal government expanded its responsibilities to include working people as well as business. It has been noted by economist-historians that between the end of World War II and the start of the 1970’s, while business grew drastically, income inequality declined significantly for Americans while posing no threat to the nation’s wealthiest. In the following years a return to uniformly pro-business policies promoted a significant rise in income inequality with the top 1 % of all incomes enjoying the largest percentiles of growth. This too is a direct result of government’s beneficence to the private sector.
The issue that we have to discuss is far more complex than whether Barack Obama is a socialist. I would submit the question to be discussed is on behalf of whose interests government intervenes. When the government assists business by bailing out the financial markets — as it often should — it is called supporting the market; when government helps regular folks, as with health care reform, it stirs up fears of something called “socialism.”
One of my favorite GOP presidents, Theodore Roosevelt understood the vital role of American individualism and citizenship, but, he argued in 1910, when human rights are in conflict with property rights,
“human rights must have the upper hand, for property belongs to man and not man to property.”
Some today would call this socialism.
And I have a sneaky feeling that many of my friends who call themselves “conservatives” would agree. But at least we can argue over a real issue, not a phony one.
| 78 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Wilson Pon
Health 2 Know
Adventure Toes
Techno Stuffs
boxing sound
Business Rope
I can't agree anymore, Jim. Many people were getting fooled by the beautify slogans...
Comment by DeAnne
Public Journalist
Simple Gift Guide
Home Cooking on Recipeyz
Work From Home Online
Every Day Is A Food Holiday
The problem is, too many people are just followers, and will follow anyone or anything. They don't have a clue what socialism is, or facisim either, for that matter. I know that our country is considered capitalist, but it's a lot more facist than most folks would like to admit. That's what scares me!
I really like your analogies. I've used the public school argument before, but hadn't ever thought about the public roadways. I know, here in Texas, there was a big uproar about privatized toll roads that are being considered.