I’m sure you’ve all seen the editorial that said the term “socialist” is code for “black”. It was patently ridiculous. But now I keep running across conversations, comment boards, and the like where Obama supporters say thing like, “You throw around words like ’socialist’ instead of engaging the issues.”
Since when is using a specific term that describes something with textbook accuracy not “engaging the issues”? Obama is clearly pushing for a number of socialist policies. And they aren’t policies that employ socialist ideas to meet a strong need of fix a particular problem, they are ideologically socialist. He said it himself, he thinks it’s good if you “spread the wealth around.” If you agree, fine, but don’t accuse those who disagree of some nefarious act for using the proper term to describe the philosophy.
SpkTruth2Pwr
I do not think that it would be problematic to Obama supporters that the term socialist was being used. I think we both know that they term is not being used as a descriptor of policies alone, but to characterize Obama as everything else that we know and associate with socialists in our history.
The context implied is not that Obama is simply planning to redistribute wealth; it is that he is bringing with him this new government structure which plans to shake the foundations of everything American we believe in.
Also, this fear of redistributing the wealth is confusing to me. I mean what are taxes in the first place? Our founding fathers made this our duty as American citizens to pay taxes so that the government can then do things that would contribute to the greater good of the country.
Charles
I use the term to describe policies. That may be because I have no cultural frame of reference for the term as a character assault.
Taxes are the price of a free society, or something like that. I have no problem with taxes…mainly because I don’t pay any. I make a decent living, and despite the fact that my federal withholding is 0, I expect a check for a few thousand dollars in February. That’s our tax code at work, and it’s redistribution.
Taxation is about paying for public services: roads, utility infrastructure, police and military security, civil government, the justice system, and some social services, like indigent care. On top of that, I’m okay with offering temporary assistance like WIC and unemployment insurance, and public schooling.
I’m not really a fan of progressive taxation, but it’s something I can live with. But the idea that raising taxes on the upper 5% (who already bear something like 90% of the tax burden) for the sole purpose of giving cash to the lower 40% is not simple taxation. It is not part of the founding father’s vision.
Alison
I’ve never equated socialism with a skin color. Where do these things come from?
(no answer required, I’m just stunned)
Charles
Some people want to cop out of any and every argument they can’t win.