The debates are heating up and it looks more and more like Obama has a very solid chance of winning, but it’s not over yet. One rumor I am hearing is that we could see a Clinton / Obama ticket. The best of both worlds? Perhaps if you are democratic liberal. It’s a nightmare if you are a republican conservative. Which are you?
I’ve often used the term “socialist” in reference to Clinton and Obama. I’ve also been refuted or told that “socialist” is the wrong word to use. But I’d like to draw from a few definitions (all taken from dictionary.com):
so·cial·ist /ˈsoʊ ʃə lɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-list] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an advocate or supporter of socialism.
2. (initial capital letter ) a member of the U.S. Socialist party.
–adjective
3. socialistic.
If we look at this definition we can pretty much derive that someone is a socialist if they advocate or support socialism. Many people confuse socialism with communism. They are oh, so very close, but not quite the same thing. So, the next definition is socialism:
so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊ ʃəˌlɪz əm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uh m] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Note that on definition #1 the ownership and control is usually an organization such as the government. What this effectively means is that the government becomes responsible for the production and allocation of wealth or services as it sees fit. Clinton is a supporter of socialized medicine. It was her thesis in college and she tried to push it while her husband was in office. At this time I won’t argue the benefits or detriment of socialized medicine though I will say that I believe some type of reformation is necessary. She still supports socialized medicine. She also has repeatedly stated that she wants to take the profits of businesses and individuals to support government programs (i.e. redistribution). Obama and Clinton also support other similar systems and the further taxation of the American people. They are socialist by the very definition of the terms.
The next question you should be asking is if this is good or bad. I suppose that depends on what your beliefs are with regards to governmental and financial systems. Most fiscally conservative people see this as a bad thing. I tend to agree with it. Our country was built and founded on principles of capitalism, not socialism. I see this as Anti-American, but I suppose America is defined by what it is and not what it was supposed to be.
The other thing I find ironic about all this is that pretty much all democrats as well as some republicans and independents are upset with Bush and Cheney because they have managed to expand the reach and power of the government.
I agree with people when they say that they see this as a bad thing. I personally believe that the government should stay out of business and private lives with the exception of regulations for safety. This is an idealistic approach and is obviously not feasible. That does not mean that I support Bush and Cheney’s approach to expanding the power of government.
But let’s take the argument from a liberal / democratic approach. They don’t like Bush and Cheney for this reason, yet at the same time they are supporting candidates that want to dramatically expand the power of the government through socialistic systems! That’s pretty hypocritical in my opinion. If you follow logic and reason one should not criticize Bush and Cheney and at the same time support Obama or Hillary.
But I’ve often said that politics is like religion. If you talk to religious zealots (ok, even your plain-Jane religious folks) you will find that they are very adept at dismissing logic and reason when it fits their cause. The same thing is true of politics.
Bush and Cheney are often referred to as “fascists.” For definition sake, and since this entry contains definitions I’ve included the definition of a fascist here.
fas·cist /ˈfæʃ ɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2. (often initial capital letter ) a member of a fascist movement or party.
3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.
–adjective
4. Also, fa·scis·tic /fəˈʃɪs tɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuh-shis-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. of or like fascism or fascists.
It is also necessary to define fascism to conclude one is a fascist:
fas·cism /ˈfæʃ ɪz əm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uh m] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
This becomes interesting because to a large extent, fascism tends to support socialism and vice-versa. This is true of Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, etc. These people were fascists. The closest you can come to Bush being a fascists is by the 4th definition which states:
“a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.” One might argue that by expansion of governmental power that he could be classified as a fascist, but I’d say that’s stretching it. I would be more likely to say that democratic politicians are closer to fascism than republican candidates, but I suppose that is arguable depending on which politician you pick and chose from.
I wonder if it’s through misinterpretation that our language evolves and changes. The definitions of liberals and conservatives has certainly changed over time. It would be interesting to have an English scholar comment on this one as I certainly do not have the education and knowledge to address it empirically.
My bottom line – I hope that you have a better understanding of the actual definitions of the words and what they mean. I do not support socialism and I do not support fascism, but I think they have both been misinterpreted or misused.
4 comments:
If we are going to explore what it means to be a socialist or a fascist, maybe the Webster's dictionary -- one who practices socialism -- doesn't shed much light on the discussion.
Believing that the areas in which Obama advocates an expanded government role are worth considering does not make you a hypocrite because you are concerned by the Bush/Cheney expansion of the Executive Power. The two are not coextensive and consequences of each are vastly different.
Hi liberal chick –
Thanks for the comments. The idea was not to completely explore what it means to be a fascist or socialist but to merely point out that people apparently do not know what the definitions mean. I believe this to be due in large part to gross misuse of the words, which may even be altering people’s perceptions of the definitions. As I hinted, this may be how languages evolve and meaning change or become amended to over time.
With regards to being hypocritical I am specifically referring to people that complain about the expanding power of the government under one administration, but are apparently happy to allow it under another administration.
It doesn’t matter if it’s Bush, Obama, Hillary, or McCain. If you were to say that you didn’t agree with the particulars of the Bush / Cheney expansion and you preferred someone else’s methodologies that would not in itself be hypocritical as you are not against the expansion and control, but against the policies of that control. You either favor expansion and control of the government or you do not.
I personally do not favor it, and I don’t care who wants to do it. I recognize that some control by the government is a necessary evil but I’d prefer the government to have very little involvement in our personal lives and businesses.
*sigh*
Your post makes an unfair allegation of hypocrisy because you compare two things that have no relationship to each other.
The expansion of Executive Power threatens the checks and balances put in place by the framers of the Constitution – consolidation of power in one branch, or worse, one person.
The policy issues you cite raise questions of whether we want the ENTIRE government to reach into a market. The safeguards of bicameralism and presentment, Congressional oversight, etc. are not implicated.
One is about the balance of power among the branches of government. The other is about how much government we want in our lives.
Apples and oranges.
Calling people hypocrites based on your analysis is unfair.
You have a valid argument, with one minor exception. I wasn’t referring to just the expansion of executive power of the current administration within the government, but the over all expansion of governmental power and control.
From that perspective it is a valid comparison and is completely fair.
I don't think you and I are arguing the about the same thing. :)
Post a Comment