Is Obama A Socialist?

A commonly heard charge in the debate over Obama’s health care plan is that the President is a socialist, which we are meant to understand as a threat to what America stands for. Typically, the argument behind this charge slushes over the definition of socialism, insinuating that socialism is akin to communism, and will sap the virtuous energy of the capitalistic spirit that has made our country great. This reasoning is unabashedly planted in confusion and misinformation. First, while socialism resonates with the Marxian rebuke of exploitative capitalism, it does not espouse violent overthrow of the government a la the Russian revolution. Socialism only suffers from guilt by association with Russian ideologues who prostituted Marxist notions and became godless dictators to boot. There is no need for paranoia here. Socialism is not the inevitable enemy of democracy any more than capitalism is the elixir of democratic practice. (I will flesh out this statement below.) Second, socialism is more a social management system than an ideology. As the dictionaries state it, socialism puts control of production or services in the hands of the government “for the benefit of the community.” The government then controls 100 percent of the market for the benefit of the citizen body. Obama’s health care plan, the subject of current controversy, is similar only in whom it includes as beneficiaries. It differs from socialism in being a voluntary plan. The proposed insurance option does not prevent the private sector from continuing in good capitalist style. The government merely will be joining the competitive game, with the novel idea of fairness, to service those who are pushed out by the HMOs’ ruthless race for profits. Conclusion: Socialism is not Communism, and Obama’s health care plan is not socialism. One does not bring a ship safely into harbor by mistaking the sandbar for the dock. Helpful illumination for flailing navigators: While communism and socialism share a common goal--the uplifting of the masses from the tyranny of the wealthy and the elite--some have not noticed that democracy makes it a threesome, by aiming for the same result. Still, there are distinctions limning the three. - Communism is an ideology (allegedly). - Socialism is a management program. - Democracy is a structural system with well-designed scaffolding. Note that communes, as distinguished from cults, normally are no threat to their neighbors and have existed in the United States without notable harassment, e.g. the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, Brook Farm and others. Socialism has also been part of our history to good effect--the post office, public schools, social security, medicare, Amtrak, to name a few. Democracy is the master plan with built-in periodic inspections. Those who would scare us with unrelated references to Russian style communes and confused use of the term socialism disqualify themselves from legitimate participation in the debate. Both socialism and communism are ideas without structural form. Marx imagined the state withering away after the revolution for lack of usefulness. Confusion is compounded by the fact that when the masses revolted in Russia and overthrew the Czar, the revolutionists had no answer for the resulting anarchy and turned to dictatorship to run the state machinery, thereby prostituting their ideology. Because Marxist ideology was anti-capitalistic and Russia’s political leaders fell into godless tyranny, the Communistic state became our antithesis. But this has nothing to do with “communes” which have a place in our national history. Unfortunately, socialism by association with the ideological delinquency of Soviet communism became a foil. In definitional reality, socialism, lacking definite political configuration, is no more an agent undermining democracy than the communal practices of the early Christian church were a threat to Christ’s followers. A good case may even be made that socialism is a closer cousin to Christianity than is capitalism, if all communicants or citizens are respected on an equal level. Any genuinely people-oriented democratic system will work well as long as the leadership retains integrity and the system wells from established traditions--two things with which the United States has been blessed. Democracy as practiced in America enfolds all citizens with a political structure that can protect against ineffective programs, scoundrels, and misguided idealists. Our colonial ancestors were not strangers to tyranny and its counterpart--government intervention. But we had long colonial experience in political management, democratic sympathies, individual freedoms, and scholarly leaders that enabled us to set up a path- breaking structure for democracy that eliminated dictators and established a system for popular rule. We clicked the structure into place without the need to spend emotional prejudice against social style management, such as mail delivery, passenger travel, public education, compulsory pension funding. These “social” programs are examples that recognize the need to plug management discrepancies so as to benefit the “people.” Obama’s health care plan with its public option is a social program, not a socialist government; it only has the similarity of the same goal, that is, giving support to those disadvantaged members of our common body of citizens who are unable to otherwise share in what the more fortunate folk have elbowed into place for themselves to enjoy. Both social management (socialism unconverted into an explicit political configuration) and capitalism have contributed to our democratic nation. For sure, each can also be detrimental. Government welfare can sap the individual’s desire to be productive and can weaken character development and one’s sense of personal responsibility. And capitalism can become greed-run-amok, as we saw in our pre-Progressive era, and more recently with corporate CEOs given “golden parachutes” as reward for mismanagement. On the positive side, capitalism has a track record of fueling the growth of our country with hard driving energy. And government-run programs have stepped in to provide protection and aid for those who are victimized by the privileged, and are isolated from the gifts of democracy. Unintimidated by aggressive capitalistic scrooges, and watch dogging for potential inefficiency and waste of government run programs, our democratic political structure has the ability to draw the good from each (capitalism and socialism) without surrendering any of our democratic heritage. Let us not pretend that corporate greed and unethical practices represent true America, and let us not display our confusion about basic political terms and use the socialism tag as a scare word to regain political advantage lost in the last national election. When the structure of democracy is sound, there is no need for fear-mongering. James Madison talked about the “tyranny of the majority,” but he had confidence that the losing side would balance the ship in ongoing election cycles. Perfectionist communities or communes still exist in our midst, peacefully on sidetracks. Capitalism still provides adrenalin for the expansion of our country’s wealth and influence, but it is an economic style that is not a rail in democracy’s scaffold. When capitalism went too far in the “robber baron” period and the industrial victimization of laborers, our democratic leaders in both major parties, under Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, joined in the progressive reforms of trust busting, and regulatory legislation to protect workers. When the corporate giants in the last decade or so milked the system for egregious profits and led our economy over the cliff into our current economic recession on a skiff of unregulated mismanagement, the voters lifted the party of change into dominance. Obama’s health care plan in all its complexity may, when put into practice, flash some “check engine soon” lights, but it represents a long needed rebalancing “for the benefit of the community.” American history may be thought of as a NASCAR event with both driver association rules and frequent pit stops. But our democratic “event” will enjoy resounding success only if everyone gets to finish the race, not just the well-financed crews. Doug Good