The problem with calling Obama a socialist. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 01:41:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The problem with calling Obama a socialist. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The problem with calling Obama a socialist.  (Read 1689 times)
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

« on: May 01, 2012, 07:10:47 PM »

If you want to honestly talk about it...
You are mixing both:  
1) perceptions vs. realities and
2)generalities vs. hyper technical definitions

That is a lot of material to wade through so I'll pick one.

Definition of Socialist
You can have many types of socialists and socialism.  By picking one type and using that as the only acceptable definition (and ignoring all others) you are making a fallacy argument.  I suspect that many might also move the goalpost and pick a different definition the second their definition was met.  

OK, 2...
Perception of socialism
Some come to their perception in different ways: key decisions, policies, rhetoric, illustrative dialogue, etc inform their views.  So your perception might be thrown off by Obama pretending to be Reagan and Lincoln and Eisenhower... Others don't buy that crap and completely discount it.  Some might focus on stuff like:
1) rolling an additional 1/6th of the economy into the federal government
2) big business cronyism and excessive bailouts/regulation controlling vast sectors of the economy
2.5) Stupid Government Spending "stimulus" on political rather than practical things.  
3) constant ginning up of racial animosity
4) constant class warfare rhetoric / redistribution policies.  
etc. etc. etc.  

I don't call Obama a socialist, but I have called specific actions socialistic because they are.  Kind of a loaded word, but it does mean something.  I haven't said anything is wrong with "socialism", but I prefer to call a spade a spade. 

      
          
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2012, 09:20:58 PM »

Here's a definition from the Oxford Dictionary of Economics (article Capitalism, which has a pithier definition than the article Socialism): "ocialism, under which in principle all major economic decisions are taken collectively".
what is the standard for "ALL" ? ? ?  We over regulate nearly all economic activity, what if we continuously make up new regulations ? Then we didn't have "ALL" before, huh?  If 60% of the economy is directly controlled by the feds is that "enough" ?  My point before is that most people sense that when you hit a tipping point (whatever it is) you have entered the socialist zone.  My guess is 50% of the economy is most people's tipping point in the US.       
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2012, 12:27:57 PM »

I call Obama a socialist because he's more like a socialist than any other descriptor I can come up with.  He's certainly pretty fcking far from a liberal, and he's too socially conservative to be a progressive, yet too pro-left-wing and statist on economics to be a centrist.

I don't even use the term with derision - though I think European socialists are much better at socialism than Obama is. 

That's a good point... what would you call BO, without calling him a Socialist?  A quasi-Socialist?
A wannabe-Socialist? A limited-Socialist? A borderline-Socialist?  A mixed bag with some socialism in it?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 13 queries.