Of course he is — it was obvious to me all through the 2008 campaign, and the more I learned, the more clear it became (the Joe the Plumber incident was a huge tell). Now Paul Mirengoff makes the case that he was at least through 1996, and even up until the election. So why would he suddenly not be one upon entering office? The next installment will address that question. I think I can guess the answer.
[Update in the afternoon]
With regard to the comments about how the GM bailout somehow (illogically) proves that Barack Obama isn’t a socialist (as though simply having a political belief completely relieves someone from being politically pragmatic), the GM IPO isn’t as big a deal as some might make it:
Look, no one is rooting for GM to fail, or for thousands of autoworkers to be laid off, or for the taxpayers to lose their entire stake in the company. But it is just ridiculous to start popping champagne corks left and right over the fact that an industrial problem child like GM managed to put its pants on today without falling on its face. Let’s hope the company continues to see sustained profitability and that the losses to taxpayers from the auto bailouts end up being small. But the defenders of those bailouts who are now calling them a “success” haven’t even come close to proving their case.
There’s a lot more at the link.
If you’re payed by tax payers to run Federal programs, I guess that makes you an automatic socialist. Is Obama more socialistic than other politicians? I haven’t seen any evidence of it. I wish he was. We could use another Roosevelt right now!
Marcel, get glasses. How many Presidents attended Socialist conventions in college? You do understand FDR made the Great Depression last much longer than it should?
He has glasses Bill, Rose-tinted ones at that!
Yes, he’s such a socialist that he sold off majority ownership of General Motors today in an IPO.
To repeat the question I raised in a previous, similar thread (a question which Marcel, a graduate of the Chris Gerrib School of Shifting Sands Argument, “answered” with little more than party-line regurgitation similar to his post above): if Obama is not a socialist, given his history and background, where is the counterbalancing libertarian component in his thought? What evidence do we have that, after his Red Diaper youth, his affiliation with various socialist and Marxist organizations and individuals, Obama took out on a more individualistic path? At some point, did he tell Uncle Frank, his fellow Alinskyites, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Ayers, Darth Soros, Rev. Wright, et al, “Hey, whoa, fellas! I’m a collectivist, but not THAT much of a collectivist! Who do you think I am–Kucinich?” I keep waiting for one of his dwindling number of defenders to show me where in Obama’s career this “Road to Damascus” moment took place, but so far all I hear is either crickets chirping or stupid non-sequitur replies like Marcel’s.
Er….Chris, you are aware that there’s a difference between a socialist and an outright Marxist, right? Only the latter insist that the government own the means of production. The socialist, a more modern and cynical fellow, and like his fellow-traveler the fascist, is quite happy that the means of production rest in private hands — so long as he can continue to parasitize their efforts.
Itching for another 10-year Depression followed by a World War, Marcel?
Bilwick – the opposite of “socialist” is not “libertarian.” There is a wide spectrum of political thought between the two poles. Your “road to Damascus” question is akin to “when did you stop beating your wife?” You assume that, despite not socializing much of anything (no public option, de-nationalizing GM) he is a socialist and argue accordingly.
Carl Pham – err, no, not really. Marxists are and always were Socialists, and both believe in the ownership of the means of production by the workers. Since the government and the UAW are selling off their shares, Obama is demonstrably not Socialist.
Forgot to add, but a couple of nights ago I was re-reading Leonard Read’s THE LOVE OF LIBERTY and one chapter is about Ear Browder, the big time Commie of the Thirties, Forties and Fifties, in which he listed about twenty State policies that would show that a country was at least socialist and an easy mark to push into outright communism. It’s amusing that pretty much all of them are pretty much mainstream now, and to object to them would be the mark of an “extremist” (i.e., someone who values liberty and thinks his life and property belong to himself and not the State). What was most interesting to me is that Browder referred to that transition period not so much as “socialism” but as “State capitalism.” Maybe Obama would say, “Hey, I’m not a socialist–I’m a State capitalist! I haven’t outright nationalized any industries, yet!”
Trust Gerrib to shift the sands once again into a debate over which word is the opposite of “socialist.” Okay, you pick the antonym you like. I’ll re-state the question, so I can enjoy watchuinhg you weasel out of addressing it again. Given Obama’s long history of being associated with statist, anti-individualist, collectivist and Marxist or Marxist-influenced ideas, individuals and groups, where is the evidence of some anti-statist, pro-individualist, pro-liberty thought or tendency in Obama’s thought? Have I made it simple enough for you?
I seem to recall that GM was bought during the Obama Administration, which then sold off many of its assets and closed dealerships by political fiat. And now, the government is selling GM stock at a significant loss to the taxpayer.
Ok, so perhaps the selling isn’t something a strict Socialist may do (although I never knew Socialist meant you didn’t participate in the market). Just what type of economist construct would Gerrib put Obama? Keynsian? Whatever it is, the idea seems bad for business and bad for America. Destruction of capital always seems like a bad idea, yet Gerrib always seems to defend it.
@Bill Maron Says:
“Marcel, get glasses. How many Presidents attended Socialist conventions in college? You do understand FDR made the Great Depression last much longer than it should?”
I guess If you have a Sarah Palin perspective of the universe, I’d guess you’d believe that. Of course, she believes humans walked with dinosaurs:-)
@M Puckett Says:
“He has glasses Bill, Rose-tinted ones at that!”
You right wing extremist nut cases believe that Europe, Canada, and Japan and maybe even the left coast (California, Oregon, Washington) are all socialist nightmare economies, while the good ole right wing South is the sole bastion of freedom in the universe!
You guys amuse me– except when you’re trying to push Creation Science in the schools. Then you guys start getting kind a scary:-(
I guess If you have a Sarah Palin perspective of the universe, I’d guess you’d believe that. Of course, she believes humans walked with dinosaurs
Is anyone other than a moron supposed to find this comment either intelligent, or relevant to the discussion?
You guys amuse me– except when you’re trying to push Creation Science in the schools.
Can you point to which of us have done that? Or are you posting to the wrong blog? Or just having demented delusions?
Wow, Marcel’s unhinged off-base tirade is upstaging Gerrib’s stock “No True Scotsman” performance. Amazing. /popcorn
Ah, I guess Marcel doesn’t have a real answer to my questions just ad hominem bloviating.
“Yes, he’s such a socialist that he sold off majority ownership of General Motors today in an IPO.”
Yes, Chris. He did a fine job re-distributing wealth from debt holders to the UAW. He really spread the wealth around. He even has said he knows when you’ve made enough money.
@Marcel F. Williams: One of the regular commenters here pushes Creation Science? I must need a new decoder ring.
Bilwick – Given Obama’s long history of being associated with statist, anti-individualist, collectivist and Marxist or Marxist-influenced ideas, individuals and groups – except that’s not given. Regarding anti-statist, try selling GM. Or not nationalizing banks. Or not even addressing gun control (despite the warning letters I get from the NRA, asking for more money). Or not setting up either a single-payer (Canadian) or single provider (UK) health care system.
Leland – what would be more destructive of capital – let all GM plants sit idle and all dealerships collapse or just some of them? The GM bailout, like the stimulus and Bush’s TARP, are the very definition of Keynsian economics. Keynes advocated that when the private sector stops spending, government should start.
For any definition of socialism (other than “stuff I don’t like) the GM IPO is going the wrong way. It’s exactly the opposite of “socialism.”
Regarding anti-statist, try selling GM. Or not nationalizing banks. Or not even addressing gun control (despite the warning letters I get from the NRA, asking for more money). Or not setting up either a single-payer (Canadian) or single provider (UK) health care system.
The fact that he picks his battles carefully (or at least imagines he does) doesn’t make him not a socialist. Part of being a socialist, as he learned from his cohorts in the eighties, is to be deceptive about it. Anyway, I’m not sure what gun control has to do with socialism.
@Rand Simberg Says:
“I guess If you have a Sarah Palin perspective of the universe, I’d guess you’d believe that. Of course, she believes humans walked with dinosaurs
Is anyone other than a moron supposed to find this comment either intelligent, or relevant to the discussion?
You guys amuse me– except when you’re trying to push Creation Science in the schools.
Can you point to which of us have done that? Or are you posting to the wrong blog? Or just having demented delusions?”
What you’re doing is ‘generalizing’ about the president of the United States being a socialist– without presenting any hard evidence! So I thought I’d join in and do a little generalizing about the right wing in this country too. Plus, with all of the Obama bashing, I strongly suspect that some of you actually voted to put Sarah Palin just a heartbeat away from controlling nuclear weapons– which tells me a lot!
But if anything, Obama’s policies seem more Nixonian– especially when it comes to the space program.
Leland – what would be more destructive of capital – let all GM plants sit idle and all dealerships collapse or just some of them?
That wouldn’t have happened, and a normal bankruptcy/restructuring would have been far less destructive of capital than the bailout was. But it wouldn’t have preserved the union contracts…
What you’re doing is ‘generalizing’ about the president of the United States being a socialist– without presenting any hard evidence!
If you were actually capable of following the links and reading the material therein, you would see that abundant hard evidence was provided.
So I thought I’d join in and do a little generalizing about the right wing in this country too.
No one was “generalizing” about anything. So your stupid comments about Sarah Palin, dinosaurs, and creationism remain complete non sequiturs. But then, we’ve noticed that logic has never been your strong suit.
@Titus Says:
November 18th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
“Wow, Marcel’s unhinged off-base tirade is upstaging Gerrib’s stock “No True Scotsman” performance. Amazing. /popcorn”
I think when you start calling the President of the United States a Socialist (the same guy who didn’t fight for a public health care option and the same guy who wants private companies to fly astronauts into space, not government) then I think that’s when the “off-hinge” stuff starts.
Disagreeing with the President’s policies is one thing. But calling him a socialist is just silly!
How about letting the free market decide which plants produce and which sit idle rather than a politician looking at who donated the most money?
Rand – without debtor-in-possession financing, which no private organization was willing to offer, GM would have had to shut down all operations immediately. Then, the bankruptcy court would have had to sort out the millions of claims and find somebody to buy the plants. In any realistic scenario, this would have taken years and yielded pennies on the dollar.
Instead, GM is re-hiring, more profitable than Toyota and re-paying taxpayers. How is that not a good thing for everybody?
the same guy who didn’t fight for a public health care option
He said he wanted it. If he didn’t “fight for it,” it’s because he knew that he couldn’t get a bill through with it. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t want it.
Instead, GM is re-hiring, more profitable than Toyota and re-paying taxpayers. How is that not a good thing for everybody?
We don’t know if they’ll be fully repaid. And we’ll never know what more productive things could have been done with that money than preserving UAW jobs, wages and benefits.
@Rand Simberg
“No one was “generalizing” about anything. So your stupid comments about Sarah Palin, dinosaurs, and creationism remain complete non sequiturs. But then, we’ve noticed that logic has never been your strong suit.”
I’ve probably criticized President Obama more than anyone. But I’m not crazy enough to call him a socialist. Besides, the man is a millionaire who sends his kids to an elite private school (not a public school like Jimmy Carter did). That’s a strange sort of socialism!
Rand – so now we’ve gone from “he’s a socialist” to “maybe we could have done something different with the money.”
Leaving aside the fact that you don’t dispute that it was a productive thing to do, the IPO is still exactly the opposite of any “socialist” plan.
and yielded pennies on the dollar.
Which is exactly what the bond holders got.
Leaving aside the fact that you don’t dispute that it was a productive thing to do, the IPO is still exactly the opposite of any “socialist” plan.
Chris, we said he’s a socialist, not that he’s stupid. He has at least a vague sense of what’s politically achievable. The idea isn’t to bring on the dictatorship of the proletariat overnight — it’s all about incrementalism. Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for the country, he overreached with the health-care bill.
“Or are you posting to the wrong blog?”
Maybe he is. He does like to post to http://thespaceadvocate.blogspot.com/
The person running that website was trying to convince me in the TEDx NASA livestream chat that he could prove we have moved past the need for money. He’s promoting the idea that we should get rid of money, have robots do all our work, and have an AI apportion ‘resources’. Somehow though, they don’t think this is socialist, or communist. Of course, he doesn’t mention this idea, or link to it on his blog above, but if you find his Youtube channel, TZMSocialEvolution, you’ll see how far off the deep end some people are.
I just spotted this summary of GM and their IPO today on National Review…
GM still owes the U.S. government $43 billion; that its financing arm still owes $14.6 billion; and that its sick friend Chrysler still owes $8.2 billion. Before we start declaring GM an American success story, let’s keep in mind that the government lost $9 billion of taxpayers’ original investment on today’s partial stock sale. GM still has major problems stemming from its pension obligations. Yes, auto sales have rebounded, but that is thanks to a surge in light-truck sales, which are not the kind of clean, green machines that Obama wants GM’s customers to buy.
GM should have been allowed to declare bankruptcy, thereby shedding itself of the obscene pension commitments that the prior generation of leadership punted to today, and it would have emerged as a restructured, and far more competitive, global business. Instead, they still owe Americans billions and they still have those obscene pension commitments. Our current administration aided and abetted GM in punting tough decisions down the road yet again.
I say he’s a progressive, progressing towards socialism. He is redistributing, but to his friends. The Unions got an ownership stake they didn’t have before. That’s definately not libertarian in any way.
@Jason Says:
Yeah. I post on his site sometimes. So what. You apparently visited his site. So does that make you a socialist? I think he runs a good blog with some interesting ideas. Of course, just because I post on blog doesn’t mean that I agree with everything that is written on it– as you can see here:-)
Personally, I believe in capitalism within the framework of a democratic republic.
The unions got an ownership stake in lieu of cash that they were owed for taking on the health care benefits of union retirees. In bankruptcy they’d have gotten zilch and all those retirees would be without health care. Which means the retirees would be either cluttering up emergency rooms or getting a taxpayer bailout. Either way, we pay.
What everybody forgets is that the UAW gave major concessions to GM in 2007, before the financial crisis hit. What nearly killed GM was the one-two of yo-yo-ing gas and the recession.
There are plenty of left of center European political parties with names like “Democratic Socialist” and “Christian Socialist”. The people in those parties are pragmatic socialists who believe we will eventually progress to socialism, but don’t believe that the best way to get there is 100% socialism right now. Obama, like much of the Democratic party, would be right at home in a European style Democratic Socialist party.
In other words, he’s a pragmatic socialist, who wants to get there progressively.
Yours,
Tom
I visited, I didn’t post. Besides, he would probably delete them anyways, or close comments as he does on his Youtube channel. No, it doesn’t make me, or you a socialist. Neither does everyone who recieves a government paycheck.
Limited government doesn’t mean No government. It does mean No to government Junk touching. Which means we’ve already gone past reasonable government, much less limited government.
What nearly killed GM was the one-two of yo-yo-ing gas and the recession.
Ahhh, that’s why Ford needed a bailout. Thank-you.
Yeah really, Curt. Can’t believe someone would be so dumb as to overlook that point.
And as for the sad sad story that retired UAW workers would have been up s*** creek without a paddle if GM went bankrupt — oh cry me a river. Like that problem isn’t one umpty million people face each and every day without sucking up $50 bil in taxpayer rescuing, and having their interests artificially jumped to the head of the line. Blech.
GM got a bailout purely and simply because the unions had a deep connection to the Socialist in Chief, and the rest of us poor bastards, who aren’t so lucky in our choice of working situation, have to look out for our own interests the same way we always have, and always will.
Let’s not even speak of the dreadful moral hazard here. The important lesson of the GM bankruptcy that wasn’t would have been to the unions: when someone tells you your demands are going to drive your employer out of business, LISTEN UP. That can actually happen. “Competitiveness” is not just a bogey man management uses to scare you at negotiation.
But of course socialists, like Chris and our President, don’t think that way. For them, all the risk is to be born by the entrepreneur and the independent thinker, and all the benefit by the fat ignorant cog-like worker bee. I can well believe Chris doesn’t think Obama is “socialist” — for the same reason Stalin didn’t think Trotsky was “Communist” enough. Feh.
Jason Says:
“I visited, I didn’t post. Besides, he would probably delete them anyways, or close comments as he does on his Youtube channel. No, it doesn’t make me, or you a socialist. Neither does everyone who recieves a government paycheck.
Limited government doesn’t mean No government. It does mean No to government Junk touching. Which means we’ve already gone past reasonable government, much less limited government.”
What you’re advocating is good government– which everyone should be for whether its big or small.
In my opinion, government should only do those things that private industry either cannot do, or refuses to do, or simply cannot do as efficiently as government can in order to enhance the prosperity of the American people.
“What nearly killed GM was the one-two of yo-yo-ing gas and the recession.”
Explain Ford then. No bailout, world class cars and a profit with no help from taxpayers.
Obama said at some point you have enough wealth. Since he is making that assumption about other peoples wealth… he is a socialist.
Obama said he believes in redistributing wealth, taking from those that earn to those that don’t… he is a socialist.
Obama lies about who he is with no remorse… he is a sociopath.
Socialism is about taking away ownership. You don’t own something when the government controls it. Most (if not all) politicians are socialists.
Chris can blissfully rumble on about how GM has become more profitable than competent businesses like Toyota or Ford. But I have an ugly question to ask. How did a company on its last legs make that big a turnaround? It had to be lots of government swag. And why did they deserve that sort of advantage when a better US company like Ford didn’t get it? Finally, just how many public dollars are now in GM? I’m not just talking about stock, but also debt.
This is how failure spreads. GM at least for the near future is now a healthy company again, the US public is a bit poorer, and Ford, which should have been the last man standing, now has to struggle at a significant competitive disadvantage with obligations it can’t remove as easily as GM’s were. The next time the auto industry has to be bailed out, we’ll see GM and Chrysler back to begging for handouts. But what can Ford do? There’s a good chance it’s not going to be as healthy as it was this time around.
We had the chance to make a better car industry, but people like Chris chose party allegiance over the US’s future.
I’m really interested to find the root cause of Chris and Marcel’s obsessive-compulsive need to convince everyone here that Obama is not a socialist. Why do you care? Given that it’s Chris, the truth certainly isn’t a motivator…
During the 2008 campaign the 0 stated that he saw the role of the private sector as producing wealth, and the government distributing that wealth “fairly”. The second part very much defines him as socialist.
That statement also reveals ignorance or dismissal of the effect redistribution has on production, and a belief that the natural free market distribution of wealth is grossly “unfair”.
obsessive-compulsive need to convince everyone here that Obama is not a socialist it’s the opposite of your obsessive-compulsive need to convince everyone that Obama is a “socialist.”
Who here is going out to buy a Chevy Malibu? Chris? . . . Chris? . . . Anyone?
@MfK Says:
“I’m really interested to find the root cause of Chris and Marcel’s obsessive-compulsive need to convince everyone here that Obama is not a socialist. Why do you care? Given that it’s Chris, the truth certainly isn’t a motivator…”
The problem is that the extreme right defines practically every country and every politician as socialist except, of course, for the Republican Party. The irony of course is that Republicans tend to support the largest socialist organization on Earth, the US military industrial complex which cost the tax payers about a trillion dollars annually.
In reality, all free and democratic nations are a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Trying to find the proper balance between the two is what makes politics interesting.
Marcel, the military is the one essential element required to preserve a country. A person can only wonder why you through any means would want to weaken it?