The Next [Socialist] President
October 8, 2008 / 12:31 pm • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier“God will choose the next president,” said a visiting acquaintance today. And she’s reading prophecies, too. She also mentioned that an extremely socially conservative person was voting for Obama because the person was employed by the federal government and freaked out when McCain mentioned freezing the federal government. See, a big fat government has government employees who are paid by the government and the government is…
YOU.
You pay the taxes. Does this seem obvious?
Increasingly there are the have and have nots–the haves have a intimate relationship with the government teat. The have nots, pay their taxes and ask nothing of the government besides safety and roads without potholes.
The intoxicating part of socialism (the government milk is laced with narcotics and arsenic; the people sucking live like infants in what our family calls a “milk coma”–that lulled state that is sated but not quite asleep) is that someone else pays and it’s not “me”. To get to power socialists point to the few corrupt and sow seeds of discontent. It’s fear that gives elites the strength who then make policies to give themselves more power. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is Exhibit “A”.
I haven’t run the numbers as I”m no statistician or economist, but I just wonder what percentage of the American public directly links their employment or accepts handouts from the government. That might explain why both candidates sound like big government, protectionistic socialists.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
25 Responses to “The Next [Socialist] President”
By steve on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
For whatever failings and shortcomings Obama has (and I can think of several), labeling him a “socialist” and comparing him to Chavez tells me that you…
1. …are engaged in poorly communicated hyperbole
2. ..don’t know what socialism is or what Chavez, a true villain, has done
3. …subscribe to a practice of defining words so promiscuously that they can mean anything - and therefor nothing.
4. …are so partisan that anything bad=Obama (or dems/liberals generally), rendering you unable to think outside of a false thought-dichotomy of Republican vs. Democrat as proxy for Good vs. Evil.
My money’s on #4, but what do I know.
By Dr. Melissa Clouthier on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Steve,
My quote is this:
First, I said that BOTH candidates SOUND like socialists. I didn’t say they were socialist. But that they are using the rhetoric of socialists.
Second, what is the language of socialism? “Fairness, egalitarian, intervention, regulation”.
Third, socialism is about the collective ownership run by the government. Obama proposes that solution for health care and he voted for the bailout. McCain voted for the bailout. The bailout concentrates mortgage and banking power in the hands of the government.
Socialism. I do not think it’s hyperbole to say that these guys are using socialist language. In fact, I think I’m using restraint in describing these candidates as their ACTIONS certainly have socialist outcomes.
By Naqamel on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Obama is a textbook Fascist. He is the ideological equivalent of Benito Mussolini.
But don’t take my word for it - read the book, or, if you’re in a hurry, look up the Nazi Party Platform and see how much of it Obama supports.
By steve on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
So you’re not saying that they’re socialists, they just use “socialist language” (whatever that means):
“First, I said that BOTH candidates SOUND like socialists. I didn’t say they were socialist. But that they are using the rhetoric of socialists.”
But them again, they are engaged in socialist actions, so they are socialists? :
“Third, socialism is about the collective ownership run by the government. Obama proposes that solution for health care and he voted for the bailout. McCain voted for the bailout. The bailout concentrates mortgage and banking power in the hands of the government.”
I think the problem is that either you or your writing lack clarity and precision.
1. If you think they’re socialists, say that explicitly and defend it. But intimating and then sort of denying and then taking it back and parsing language from action (which you then conflate) leaves the reader confused.
Maybe you’re trying to engage in some form of advocacy rather than just candidly sharing your views. In that case, obfuscating is strategy.
2.Neither Obama nor McCain are offering anything that is remotely like what Chavez is doing in Venezuela. It’s silly to point to a dictator whose ending democratic institutions and insert a communist regime with either candidate.
By steve on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Naqamel:
I’ve read as much as I can stomach. Talk about a lack of precise thought! “The fascists did X, and the left advocates X, ergo the left is fascist” isn’t reasoning. He even makes himself look like an idiot by pointing out things like staying in good physical condition. “Oabama excercises and Hitler excercised, ergo…”.
And for the books to NOT be just a Republican party campaign tool (i.e. for it be the scholarly work it purports to be), you would at least need to use the same reasoning with the OTHER major political party and see where that reasoning - of finding similarities (like whupping up patriotic fervor for goign to war?) and extrapolating damning characteristics - takes you. Also, you’d need to look at what’s DIFFERENT, for both parties. Finally, you’d need to put things into some sort of modern context, which would basically tell us that neither party is engaged in fascism, but that you can find simlarities and analogies between pretty much any two things if you really try.
But Jonah’s a politico, not a scholar, so he didn’t bother with any of that. The Hitler mustache on the cover is just for effect. Why not trivialize the Holocaust? And it just makes sense on it’s face: the democratic party’s been exterminating races and trying to invade other countries for long enough! Thank God Jonah’s here to tell us that it isn’t right!
By Mr. Chuckles on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Sorry Melissa, Steve has you dead to rights. While trying to demonize the media for various left-wing socialist viewpoints, you have allowed yourself to be manipulated by them with the repub/democrat, good vs. evil mantra that they have been preaching for years. In the runup to the Iraq war the press was complicit in labeling anti-war advocates as liberal/socialist unpatriotic democrats, and most of America bought it. Five and a half years later most of those “non-patriots” have been vindicated and the general sentiment even among republicans is that the war was a big mistake. The press continues to push their red state vs blue state agenda however, even though most Americans agree on about 90% of the issues. A prime example is the bailout debacle, where most dems and repubs (not congressional ones however…) agree that the handout was tantamount to corporate welfare. Blogs (both left and right) like yours do nothing to show that there are more rather than less commonalities among all Americans - they simply exist to exploit the percieved dichotomy that Steve was talking about. By continuosly lumping all democrats into one category you are caving into that which you profess to hate- the manipulation and categorizing of viewpoints into simplistic and biased terms by the MSM. In all fairness you seem like an articulate and well informed person, but many of your one-sided rants do you a great disservice and make you seem like no more than a grass roots mouthpiece for the republican party rather than a source of unbiased information (I’m assuming that you would prefer to be thought of as unbiased, but maybe I’m wrong). And yes, I’d have to agree with Steve. Labeling Obama as Chavez shows a willful lack of acknowledement of the facts. It is akin to many of the left wing blogs labeling Bush as a nazi (which by the way Naqamel is what hitler was - can’t see any “hitlerish” tendencies on either Obama or McCain’s part).
By Naqamel on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Steve,
You obviously read no more of the book than the back cover.
Goldberg points out modern Secular Humanism’s roots in Robespierre’s French Revolution, and traces the “Progressive” Humanist Totalitarian Government through Marx, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and the modern Democratic Party.
Had you read the book, you would not have tried to trivialize it with a simple flawed logic analogy.
By Naqamel on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
which by the way Naqamel is what hitler was - can’t see any “hitlerish” tendencies on either Obama or McCain’s part
Really? You must not only have missed the Obama Youth videos, but must be completely ignorant of History as well.
This media fawning over a political figure the way the MSM fawns over Obama has happened before. The NY Times had editorial after editorial praising one Benito Mussolini and his “experiment” in Italy.
Furthermore, it’s easy to see the pattern in effect here:
1. Create a Crisis
2. Get a young, charismatic leader promoting change into power by any means necessary
3. Sieze and Centralize Power. By Any Means Necessary.
When applied to Democrats:
1. Create an economic crisis and a health care crisis. The economic crisis via the CRA and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess, and the Health Care Crisis by opposing tort reform of malpractice suits, blocking the importation of prescription drugs from other first world countries (Canada and Western Europe), not allowing hospitals to either not treat, or treat and deport, illegal aliens that are bankrupting our hosiptals and increasing the cost of health care for the rest of us.
2. Young, charismatic leader promoting “change”?
Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Barack Obama. Birds of a Totalitarian Feather.
3. We’ll see if ACORN commits enough voter fraud to send the election to Obama.
This pattern has happened time and time again. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
The harsh reality of this is that Barack Obama is the ideological equivalent of Benito Mussolini.
When Obama refuses to solve the Iranian problem, we’ll probably have another Holocaust on our hands as well.
When every activity is monitored and regulated due to Nationalized Health Care - put down that hamburger, read meat is bad for you and may cause cancer, and treating that cancer is now paid by taxpayers - there will be no limit to the amount of power these liberal fascists can seize.
When every activity of your life is monitored and controlled by the State, you, my friend, will have deserved it.
Everything in the State, Nothing Outside the State.
Mussolini’s Philosophy.
Shared by Obama.
By steve on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Naqamel:
“Had you read the book, you would not have tried to trivialize it with a simple flawed logic analogy.”
That he fills out his false analogies with other examples is no matter. You can play that game with anything. As Popper noted: you can find evidence for any hypothesis,wrong or right, and Jonah’s ham-fisted confirmation-bias-fest is proof of that. Y0u point any two things out to me, and I can come up with ways in which they’re similar. Remove them in time, and you can make it seem like one is the progeny of the other. I can easily say that Republicans are the modern day fascists because they’re more likely than the dems to start wars, they challenge the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them, and they’ve steadily conflated big gov’t and big corporations. But I don’t really believe that means that Republicans are fascists - it just means that I’ve cherry picked some things that they may have in common and presented them out of historical historical context to make it SEEM like they’re fascists.
By steve on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
I read your other post Naqamel and it’s sheer paranoia! Do you really think that if we elect Obama POTUS, we will become a fascist or communist country? Really? Do you really think Obama wants to ban red meat? AHveother nationalized healthcare systems done this? Have they become fascists?
You’ve made some truly insane statements. You should really think more about them. MAybe your kidding….
By steve on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
“Labeling Obama as Chavez shows a willful lack of acknowledement of the facts. It is akin to many of the left wing blogs labeling Bush as a nazi (which by the way Naqamel is what hitler was - can’t see any “hitlerish” tendencies on either Obama or McCain’s part).”
I don’t think Naqamel id “Hitlerish”, I just think he’s being paranoid.
But I agree with you: when someone on the left says that Bush is Hitler, I really get pissed. Are we THIS ignorant of history in this country? I know that it’s the ultimate insult to somehow connect whomever you don’t like to Hitler, but the truth is, there have been few people who really were Hitler-like, and throwing it around as people do is stupid and insulting - to those who really had to face down real fascism, and to he rest of our intelligence.
By steve on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Robespierre > Marx > Mussolini, Hitler > Stalin > Modern U.S.Democratic Party.
I do have to go, but I really wanted to paraphrase Naqamel’s response above becasue it’s SO insane, illogical, and historically inaccurate that it really merits to be spelled out.
Stalin, Hitler, Deuce and Obama - same deal. It’s like looking into the face of insanity when someone say something like that.
By Naqamel on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Steve,
In your own admission, you haven’t read the book in its entirety, and yet somehow you feel qualified to discuss the points in the book?
Tell you what, why don’t you read Exodus, and we’ll talk about the Holy Bible in it’s entirety. What? That’s a goofy idea, you say?
And yet, that’s exactly what you’re trying to do. Discuss the points in a book that you haven’t read in its entirety. Instead, you fall into an ad hominem fallacy attacking Goldberg the person instead of his message.
Had you read the book, you would have seen that Goldberg doesn’t let Republicans off the hook, either.
As for the rest of your post:
I can easily say that Republicans are the modern day fascists because they’re more likely than the dems to start wars,
WWI: Woodrow Wilson, Democrat (and the first fascist US President according to Goldberg, or are you also ignorant of the Sedition Acts?)
WWII: Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat. Though this one was started by the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor.
Korea: Truman, Democrat. Also Nuked Japan.
Vietnam: Kennedy and Johnson, Democrats.
Iraq 1: Bush, Republican
Bosnia: Clinton, Democrat
Haiti Intervention: Clinton, Democrat
Afghanistan: Bush, though started by Al Qaeda
Iraq II: Bush, because the UN wouldn’t enforce resolutions against Saddam Hussein.
Still think more wars are started by Republicans?
Which candidate in last night’s debate wants to attack Pakistan and send troops to Darfur? (Hint: Not John McCain)
they challenge the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them,
No, we’re challenging your judgment. Your lack of patriotism and “Blame America First” tendencies are transparent and thus don’t need to be challenged.
and they’ve steadily conflated big gov’t and big corporations.
That point I’ll concede. On this, the GOP has been “Democrat Lite”. Still doesn’t change the fact that the Democrat Party is the modern home of Fascism.
By Mr. Chuckles on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Naqamel,
By your definition:
1. Create a crisis: “Iraq has WMD’s - we’re all going to die!” (this was put forward prior to 2000 by wolfowitz, pearle, etc. - well documented)
2. Get a (not so) young leader promoting change into power by any means necessary: Bush, highly controversial election by any historical measure, decided as you know by supreme court (5/4 conservative).
3. Seize and centralize power: Homeland security post 9/11. Declare anti-war viewpoints as unpatriotic and islamo-fascist, label naysayers as agents of terrorism, Ari Fleischer -”watch what you say”. Put protesters into “free speech zones” (didn’t the COMMUNIST Chinese do this during the olympics as well?)
No relevance? Current scenario:
New crisis: Banks failing, we’re all gonna die (financially, that is…)
New leader: Paulson - “We’re all gonna die!”
Centralization: Fed bailout/takeover
All done under Bush’s insistence. Guess this makes Bush a fascist, right? Expalin the difference to me (you know, like I’m a three year old….
Explain to me how right now my life is not monitored at every step (credit history, homeland security travel issues, spending habits, tax monitoring, political affiliation, ad nauseum…).
Point is, we can twist and construe any leader’s actions at one time or another to fit a particular ideology. Nobody (well almost) likes the term fascist, so labeling Obama as one is of course incendiary. Remember that Bush himself said that “it would be a heck of a whole lot easier if this were a dictatorship”, so maybe you should be careful about how loosely you throw around the term “fascist”
P.S. The trite but true “doomed to repeat it”;
Current financial mess:
Does that apply to the deregulation of S&L’s in the late 80’s and the then gov’t bailout as well? (under “free market” republican watch as well…).
Iraq war:
Does it apply to Nixon’s escalation of Vietnam?
Financial deregulation:
Does it apply to the deregulation of the energy markets and Enron’s rape of the taxpayers of California and it’s own shareholders?
Defecit:
Does it apply to Reagan’s unprecedented escalation of arms, escalation of the national debt and subsequent recession of 1990-1992?
Please help me understand…
And help me understand just exactly how McCain is going to be different than Bush.
By Naqamel on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Guess this makes Bush a fascist, right?
Yup. Read the book, Goldberg does not give the GOP a free pass in it.
By steve on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
I don’t need ot read the book in it’s entirety becasue:
A. This type of reasoning can never work. Read a little about logical positivism any you may get some sense as to why. As I said before, I recommen Popper becasue he really shows in detail how this sort of confirmation bias can lead to absurd conclusions - like Obama and Stalin are the same. And speaking of that…
B. You’re here comparing people who have combined to kill about 20 million people(!!!!!!!) to modern day US politicians who want socialized medicine or to bail out financial markets, whatever the merits of those plans may be. Think about that. You’re here comparing Aushchwitz to socialized medicine! Do you have any idea how many people Stalin KILLED? Do you? Or the reigns of terror those that lived had to endure? Do you really have any understanding of what these people have done whose names you throw around so casually? Just sit and think about that. Think about a policy of McCain’s or Obama’s or the Democrats that you don’t like and you casually throw around as ‘fascist’ - “ha ha ha! They’re fascists!”.
Then think about the people who’ve seen REAL fascism. And when you do that, make sure you feel a little shame. Becasue you should be ashamed of yourself for dishonoring the suffering and memory of millions and millions of dead and millions - and even more that suffered and lived - who saw real fascism.
But I forget, Jonah’s book showed that Nancy Pelosi is a fascist….Jesus Christ.
By Naqamel on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
B. You’re here comparing people who have combined to kill about 20 million people(!!!!!!!) to modern day US politicians who have killed 40 million people. Oh, right, you call it ‘abortion’.
Had you read the book, Goldberg points out that he’s not comparing the evil deeds of Stalin, Hitler, et all to modern Democrats, only that the totalitarian fascist form of Government that all of the above support is the same.
But since you haven’t read the book, and apparently won’t read it, you did not know about that.
You are completely wrong about the fundamental argument of a book (that you haven’t read) and yet, amazingly, you still feel qualified to argue it’s point.
*boggle*
By steve on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
gov’t healthcare = totalitarianism?
I could write 1000 pages about why dogs and cats are the same species of animals, and have my only evidence be channeling sessions that I did with the ghost of George Carlin, who assured me that my contentions were true.
Then, anytime you disagreed and had evidence to the contrary, I could just keep parroting “But you didn’t read the book!” - and I could just repeat that over and over. But the truth is, cats aren’t dogs, and reading the book cover to cover would be a monumental waster of time becasue my methodology was absurd, and could never result in a resaonable conclusion. Do you understand why that would be?
1. I read enough to see that Jonah’s methodology is flawed. It’s just confirmation bias + false analogy
2. From flawed methodology cannot come good conclusions
3. The proof is in the pudding: we’re not living in a totalitarian state - even though you said that Jonah says a lot of the Republicans are fascists as well. AGain - where are the fruits of all this fascism? We’re having this conversation, yet we’re not in jail for it. There are no camps that people are being wisdked off to. How come fascism bore those fruits in the past, but don’t in this instance (HINT: because it’s not fascism)
Sounds more like someone who’s live a nice life in the greatest country in the world is pampered, histroically speaking, and doesn’t really know what tough historical times are like living under fascist rule - are. Sounds like someone who thinks that if someone disagrees with them, that person is a “fascist”. The good news is, you’re not alone! People on the left and right have been throwing that word around without a care for years. There’s more good news: fascism isn’t coming anytime soon, so you’ll be prefectly free to spout out this nonsense without shame and without regard for history. I’m sure you will.
By Robert Arvanitis on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Melissa:
You ask an interesting question - what proportion of the electorate are either government employees, or accept government handouts. As an approximation, I’d weight all govt employees at 100%, and other receipients (including OASDHI beneficiaries) at 50% equivalent. Perhaps a quarter of electorate.
But that number is far smaller than the really disturbing statistic: nearly half of the electorate pay no taxes. Once that tips to majority, there is no more restraint or feedback in the system.
By Ringo on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
One thing I’ve noticed is that those who actually support socialism, and there are a great many in the U.S. and in the ruling political elite, not to mention the education establishment, love to “name call” and otherwise dismiss as stupid, those who decry would be leaders who appear to espouse socialistic policies as “socialists”. The socialist elites refer to such people as ludites who don’t understand progressive policies, etc.
By the same token, those who oppose the relentless march down the socialist road which appears to be a natural progression of the evolving nation-state, fail to grasp the grand opportunities that await those who sieze the socialist reigns of influence. Euro socialism makes millionaires of those “at the top” of the government structures and near millionaires of party operatives and key bureaucrats who administer the socialist state. Anti-socialists ignore this trend at their peril and at the peril of their own children’s future. It is possible to rise to the top of the socialist structure and to profit handsomely from the effort.
By Mr. Chuckles on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Robert,
An even funnier thing is the amount of local government employees in my area that are registered republicans. I have had many of them as clients, and they continuously bitch to high heaven about the democratic state senate and the byzantine government regs, yet they stand as eager as hogs at the trough clamoring to get their taxpayer supported paychecks, bennies, retirement, etc. I find the irony delicious - “we want small gov’t, but don’t you screw with my pension, bennies, etc.” Some of them are the biggest socialists I have ever met in my life.
By Robert Arvanitis on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
Mr. Chuckles:
You make a reasonable but minor observation that both Repub. and Dem. feed at the trough. That is why we need term limits, referendum & recall, voter initiatives, spending limits.
But you ignore the major point: when more than half vote but don’t pay taxes, nothing stands in the way of confiscatory taxes.
By DjK on Oct 11, 2008 | Reply
Correct. In William Graham Sumner’s famous essay “The Forgotten Man” the social philosopher explains:
The forgotten man (and woman) are the hard working, middle class, freedom loving, good-hearted folks who contribute to the economy by employing people in small businesses and by consuming goods/buying products and services. These are the people who will be hurt the most when elites (A and B) like Obama and even McCain talk about “plans” for “government to fix the economy.” To be frank, FDR introduced socialistic policies to mainstream US politics and we are still hurting (e.g. Social Security). The American people have not yet realized the fact that an organism as complex as the economy can not be “planned.” Any attempt to plan an economy or intervene will inevitably put the burden on the Forgotten Men and Women out here just trying to live their lives. There will always be poverty, just as there will always be extremely wealthy people, and the wealthy will not always have worked hard to earn their money. That does not give anyone the right to impose a “windfall profits tax,” which basically penalizes people for being successful.
No matter how much Obama may claim to be looking out for “the middle class,” there is no way for him pull off all of his extensive plans if not at the expensive of Forgotten Men and Women (that is, middle class men and women). I can assure you, if the wealthy fear persecution they have motive and, of course, the means to avoid such a situation either by retiring (which could cost American workers their jobs), relocating (which would cost American workers their jobs) or drastically scaling back, and down-sizing. At any rate, the tax increases on successful organizations, that Obama proposes, will only result in a less productive, less efficient America, and this will hurt everybody.
By DjK on Oct 11, 2008 | Reply
Robespierre > Marx > Mussolini, Hitler > Stalin > Modern U.S.Democratic Party.
Rousseau > Robespierre > Marx > Lenin > Stalin > FDR > Progressive Dems
It’s true that Hitler was a socialist (he was the cruelest and most brutal “social organizer” of the 20th century) but he was not favorable in most of the (non-antisemitic) socialist circles in the early/mid 1900s.