From the LA Examiner, Brian Ashamakus
Is anyone else tired of the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric coming from the far right. I sure am and I would like to take this opportunity to define socialism and then to demonstrate why Obama is not a subscriber to this economic theory.
Socialism does not describe a single economic system, however there are certain principles that are common to all forms of socialism. 1. The abolition of private property and the implementation of some form of collective ownership. In other words, the people, or their representatives (a government, party, union, guild, etc.) control land, property, and capital as a group instead of it being controlled privately by individuals and companies as in capitalism. 2. The elimination of social and economic classes. Under socialism there is no rich and poor and equality in wealth and power. 3. Production according to ability and distribution according to need. Thus in a socialist society, all produce goods and provide services according to their talents and skills and receive whatever goods and services they need from other producers. Historically, this distribution method has been accomplished through a government bureaucracy, but state control is not a necessary quality of socialism. In other words socialists seek to eliminate the capitalist (supply and demand) form of distribution.
In order to defend my thesis that Obama is not a socialist, I will look at three of his policies as president that have most often resulted in the misuse of that label--the bailout of the auto companies, the economic stimulus, and his current health care proposal. First, the auto bailout. A socialist, as mentioned above, opposes private ownership and would want automobile manufacture to be controlled collectively and for automobiles to be distributed according to need. The auto bailout's goal, however, was to help the private companies, known as the Big 3, to survive as private institutions that sell their cars according to what customers will pay for them. Thus, its goal was to preserve an aspect of capitalism (the American share of the automobile market), not establish socialism.
The economic stimulus, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, had a similar intent. The recovery's website lists several goals of the act. Some of them include reviving the renewable energy industry, investing in infrastructure, and granting tax credits to working families. These are not the goals of a socialist. Remember that a socialist seeks to eliminate private property and companies, not revive them. A socialist would also do the infrastructure investment differently. Under socialism, the government would enlist employees directly to rebuild infrastructure, not hire private contractors who will in turn hire employees as is the case in this act. Finally, the tax credits are meant to encourage spending by individuals to reinvigorate the economy. The basic premise is that the recipients of these tax credits will use the money to make purchases. This will help companies, who will use their extra earnings to hire more employees, who will be able to spend themselves, thus restarting the economy and saving capitalism. This is known as Keynesian economics, not socialism. The cash for clunkers program also works this way, encouraging spending by subsidizing the purchase with government spending. No socialist would ever try to save capitalism, which they see as the creator of the class system that they despise.
President Obama's health care plan is possibly the policy that most often results in Obama being accused of being a socialist. However, it is also the policy that best demonstrates that he is not. Obama's health care plan has many stipulations, but the primary one is the creation of a public option for health care through which insurance is purchased as a group for a lower premium. This would, however, only be an option. Persons would not be required to drop their existing insurance, nor would private insurance companies be eliminated. The plan also includes several reforms that are meant to reduce health care costs, including subsidies for employers, record-keeping improvements, and regulations of prescription drug companies. These reforms are made without nationalizing any private entities. It even seeks to help small business, by assisting them in paying for their employee health benefits. It doesn't even distribute health care according to need, as persons are still required to pay for the public option. It is therefore quite clear that this bill is not a "socialist" bill, nor is President Obama a socialist.
President Obama is a capitalist. His policies are directed at rescuing companies, revitalizing the capitalist economy, helping small businesses, and creating competition, all things actual socialists would cringe at. So please stop saying that Obama is a socialist, please stop posting it on your blogs, or yelling it at town meetings, or wearing T-shirts of it, or writing it on picket signs. Concentrate instead on legitimate criticisms of his policies and your opposition will be much more effective and better received.
