Earlier today, the Obama stimulus package passed the House 244-188, 11 of the dissenters being Democrats. While it remains to be seen what happens in congress, it seems to be a foregone conclusion it will pass. What is interesting are the numerous posts found, primarily written by Republicans, immediately after the vote was taken, that label this stimulus package as part of Obama’s “socialist” agenda. All of which begs the question: Do these people even know what socialism is? And if they did, would they react the same way?
It is interesting to note that there currently is only one openly socialist member of the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and he typically is lumped in with the Democrats for caucusing and a variety of assignments. What is even more interesting are those that have backed and endorsed him throughout his years in the House of Representatives, a list including Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and even Barack Obama. Seeing that some of the more popular politicians have campaigned for him, it is certainly worth an additional and closer look as to what this whole “socialism” thing really is.
The overriding foundation of socialism is that every member of a socialist society has an equal voice. The concept of the most attention going to the ones that can most afford it and/or give the most to a political campaign would be non-existent. Wages would be based on effort and hours, eliminating the drastic salary difference between, say, major league baseball players and 3rd grade teachers. While there are wide variations of ideas as to how this would be accomplished, it would include the state controlling major parts of industries that affect a large percentage of the population, such as power and water companies. Ideally, the government is elected democratically, thus serves as an extension of the people, giving the general population control of these industries.
Despite some obvious benefits, the general perception of a socialistic society is negative. Why? Seemingly because most seem to consider it a form of communism, which will always leave a bad taste in one’s mouth. The fact is, they are drastically different. Socialism says nothing of religion, and typically is not against the freedom of it (there are many socialist factions however, with varying views). Additionally, the end of a free market economic system is often perceived as an attack on human rights, a perception of which is debatable.
While it would have been political suicide for President Obama to admit this during the campaign, Senator McCain was correct with the accusation that Obama wanted to “spread the wealth around.” His timing was terrible, however, as the concept does not sound so bad in the current economic situation we now find ourselves in. But any plan to tax those making large incomes a greater amount than others, and then use that revenue in programs to assist the middle and lower class certainly has socialist aspects to it. Whether it is the right path or not would take a book to discuss, if not multiple volumes. It is time though, to reconsider the options that, in the past, we so quickly dismissed.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You write very well. Your prose is not overlong or boring. I like your anger. I'm glad I found your blog.
I appreciate that, and am glad you are enjoying it. Thank you for your support.
I wish not agree on it. I over polite post. Particularly the designation attracted me to read the intact story.
Post a Comment