hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Letter to a Red-Stater.
What follows is a letter I wrote to my niece's husband, Jack, who lives in Georgia. He'd accused Obama of socialism (as have some here), and I attempted to refute this at length.
Steve Scott
Punahou, '75
Indiana University, '79.
---------------
Jack,
Let's look at the charge that Barack Obama is a socialist. You gave me 96 hours to do so...and I've used much of it already, but I will get it in under the wire. This is long, but I spent some time on it...so I hope you do the me the courtesy of reading it (and some of the key citations and references) and giving it some consideration. Between now and the election, you should be able to get through it.
First, you asked for a definition of socialism. Here are two, with citations:
Socialism: An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning. (http://countrystudies.us/united-states/economy-12.htm).
Socialism: An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion. (Rius, Marx for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), 152.)
Socialism isn't monolithic, certainly. The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, is a damning indictment of capitalism and other socialist movements, of which communism is just one. I just finished it Friday.
There are five points I think refute the socialism allegation. I'll deal with them in detail. Briefly, they are as follows:
1. The charge is new, and only as of last month became a talking point for McCain.
2. Obama's tax plan, the centerpiece for the charge, is not unusual and follows a standard model.
3. McCain himself advocated such a progressive tax plan in the past. Palin has also used "spread the wealth" economics.
4. Obama's economic plans do not fit the ideals of the American socialist movement.
5. American conservatives and publications have endorsed Obama, and wouldn't do so were socialism a part of his economic plan.
1. A New Line Of Attack. I submit the socialism charge, presented hand in hand with the phrases "spread the wealth" or "wealth redistribution" and variations thereof, are recent additions to the McCain campaign. It all started with "Joe The Plumber."
When Sam Wurzelbacher (Joe isn't his real name) approached Obama, it was indeed Obama himself that used the phrase "spread the wealth." Certainly, had he said "spread the burden" it would have been more accurate in describing his tax plan and less controversial. I'm sure he regrets it.
Part of their conversation is as follows during their talk about taxation:
"Its not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off [...] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
Listen to Obama's explanation of his tax plan to Joe here:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a4_1224166209
It outlines Obama's tax plan fairly clearly. I ask that you listen to it in it's entirety.
Now let's look at the "Pre-Joe Era."
Google the transcripts of the speeches that McCain and Palin made at the Republican National Convention. Now cut and paste said speeches to any word processing program. Use the "find" function to scan for the words "socialism" or "socialist."
The words weren't used once.
Look for "wealth" and you'll find it in McCain's speech in the context of "oil wealth." You won't find "wealth redistribution" in either speech.
if this was an issue and relevant charge, how is it that these two and their speech writers MISSED mentioning it during these key speeches? It was the one moment they had the focus of the nation. Are they so incompetent that they wouldn't have brought up the issue of socialism? No. They're not. Back then it wasn't a part of the game plan. They didn't think of the "S" word until Joe came along.
The "S" word is a last feeble attempt--of many feeble attempts--to get something to stick to Obama. For the large part, it seems to be failing.
2. The Tax Plan. Sue may well have forwarded this to you, but here's a graphic from the Washington Post that outlines the tax plans of both candidates. Find your tax bracket there and then compare it with the others:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
The chart above is consistent with what Obama said in his conversation with Joe. His plan raises taxes...BUT ONLY ON THE RICH.
Possibly the thing that I find most disingenuous about the McCain campaign's message is that Obama is going to raise taxes...without specifying on whom the taxes are raised. Millions of Americans think Obama is going to raise their taxes, and he has never claimed he was going to do that on anyone making less than $250,000.
Again, view the "Joe The Plumber" video or listen to Obama's tax policies as expressed in all three debates. He is consistent. Neil Cavuto of FOX news, of all people, credits him with that.
Giving a tax break to the middle class and raising the taxes of the rich isn't socialism. And it has precedent.
The progressive tax system we now have was first instituted by Teddy Roosevelt, one of John McCain's (and one of my own) heroes. Roosevelt wrote:
"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune....and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood....
The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes...."
(http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/teddy-roosevelt-socialist-advo.html)
You'd think Teddy was talking to Joe the Plumber.
3. McCain Advocates Progressive Tax. I don't mean this as a crack on McCain, but look at the following video. In the last eight years McCain has used much the same rhetoric that Obama...and Roosevelt...have used:
Forgive the sarcastic title. I didn't pick it for that. Of course McCain is not a socialist. What he is claiming here (and elsewhere on YouTube, this is just a sample) is that the rich need to pay a higher percentage, as Roosevelt advocated and as other Presidents have effected. I struggle to make two mortgage payments. I seriously doubt a hedge fund manager living in a $10,000,000 home in Newport, Rhode Island, is going to go broke with an 8.7% increase. That is essentially what Roosevelt said, what Obama says, and what McCain used to say. They all advocate...dare I use the phrase? "Spreading the wealth around."
Palin herself has done just this by levying windfall taxes on oil corporations and giving the cash directly to Alaskans. I applaud her for this...but it is, by her own definition in her speeches attacking Obama, socialism. She said, "See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody." She, however, "redistributed" oil wealth to her consituents, and the natural resources in Alaska belong to the people collectively. It's all how one frames it.
4. Obama's Plan vs. Socialism's Goals. Obama's economic plan, aside from taxes, doesn't advocate socialism either. He isn't calling for government takeovers of industry. There is a big difference between the abolition of private property and the regulation of corporations...the latter of which is something that both he, McCain, and Bush are now calling for with the bailout of our banking and auto industries. Note too that Roosevelt, that Republican icon of progressivism, was one of the first to mandate governmental regulation of business. That isn't socialism.
Obama calls for tax relief for small businesses, most of whom make less than $250,000 a year. He further calls for an end to capital gains taxes for small businesses (I'm all for that). I can find nothing on this page, nor any of his speeches, nor any of his debates that suggest socialism as defined above:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Contrast that with the Socialist Party's website:
http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/economics.html
Where has Obama called for the cancellation of Third World debt? The abolishment of property taxes? Getting rid of sales tax? He hasn't.
This week Stephen Colbert interviewed the Socialist Party presidential candidate, Brian Moore, in order to determine whether Obama is a socialist. Moore said, with some pique, that Obama was a capitalist. The socialists themselves reject Obama:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article866862.ece
5. Obama Has The Support Of Conservatives. My final appeal is this: Were Obama a socialist, how is it that he has gained the support of of so many noted conservatives?
Lately there has been a hemorrhage of conservatives to the Obama camp. Christopher Buckley, son of the founder of the modern conservative movement; Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein; economist David Friedman, son of Nobel Laureates (and economic conservatives) Milton and Rose Friedman...the list is lengthy:
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341
Their arguments are best summed up by conservative Wick Allison. Allison, a former editor of the conservative flagship, The National Review, wrote this on Obama. Again, please take the time to read it:
http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod...s&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E
These are not people who support a socialist agenda. They're among the elite of their party, their best and their brightest.
Even conservatives who rail against Obama, such as Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol, admit his plans don't lead to socialism. Obama's plans are liberal, of course...otherwise Krauthammer and Kristol wouldn't lambast him. We expect them to do that. We can also expect Obama will be what Kristol said he would be on "The Daily Show" the other night. "He'll be a conventional liberal."
Conservative papers like the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, and the L.A. Times have endorsed Obama. Its the first time the Tribune has endorsed a Democrat in its 151 years of existence. Obama has a greater than two to one advantage in newspaper endorsements. Lest one say this is just the liberal media, remember that fifty-five of these papers backed Bush in 2004.
These are not news organizations that support socialism.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230
Last Reflections...
So who is Obama, Jack? He is now an elite socialist millionaire, his own wealth soon to spread? He is now a radical Christian muslim. He is now buddies with a domestic terrorist, and yet somehow has garnished the support of a large number of the Republican aristocracy. Do you see my point? Obama's critics are all over the map with contradictory attacks. He can not be all those things.
We have had twenty months to vet this candidate, and in that time the charge of "socialism" came up in the first week of October. It's a hollow charge, born of desperation and poor poll numbers...and it simply isn't true.
For many, this is the latest straw to grasp...a hasty rationalization hiding true feelings regarding Obama's race. For others still, the socialism charge paints a pale justification for a party identity that they've held all their lives. They were born Republican, their families vote Republican...and nothing anyone can say or do will change their minds. No data suffices, no argument sways.
I'm certain you don't fall into the first of those categories. I don't even know if your family is Republican or not, so I can't suggest the latter category describes you. Regardless, how you came to believing Obama was a socialist is irrelevant. But this you believe, though you've softened it to his "leaning that way".
This is the most important election of our lives, and I think neither of us would deny it. We owe it to ourselves, our children, and our country to approach this election with a spirit of deep research and serious bent. Granted, I have been guilty of sending on the caustic remark, the scathing cartoon. Flippancy and irreverence is my nature. We know this. This is nothing new.
And yet, I haven't been idle. I have taken much of this campaign seriously, and the research I've presented herein is a drop in the bucket to what I've done for the last six months. I say that without exaggeration, if one can measure the exaggeration of a metaphor. It has exhausted me, made me testy and confrontational. And too, we know this. And too, this is nothing new.
I leave this to you to read, and your vote to cast. It was good for me to write, even if the heart it addresses has hardened to its appeal.
With love from an even redder state than thine,
Steve Uncle
What follows is a letter I wrote to my niece's husband, Jack, who lives in Georgia. He'd accused Obama of socialism (as have some here), and I attempted to refute this at length.
Steve Scott
Punahou, '75
Indiana University, '79.
---------------
Jack,
Let's look at the charge that Barack Obama is a socialist. You gave me 96 hours to do so...and I've used much of it already, but I will get it in under the wire. This is long, but I spent some time on it...so I hope you do the me the courtesy of reading it (and some of the key citations and references) and giving it some consideration. Between now and the election, you should be able to get through it.
First, you asked for a definition of socialism. Here are two, with citations:
Socialism: An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning. (http://countrystudies.us/united-states/economy-12.htm).
Socialism: An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion. (Rius, Marx for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), 152.)
Socialism isn't monolithic, certainly. The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, is a damning indictment of capitalism and other socialist movements, of which communism is just one. I just finished it Friday.
There are five points I think refute the socialism allegation. I'll deal with them in detail. Briefly, they are as follows:
1. The charge is new, and only as of last month became a talking point for McCain.
2. Obama's tax plan, the centerpiece for the charge, is not unusual and follows a standard model.
3. McCain himself advocated such a progressive tax plan in the past. Palin has also used "spread the wealth" economics.
4. Obama's economic plans do not fit the ideals of the American socialist movement.
5. American conservatives and publications have endorsed Obama, and wouldn't do so were socialism a part of his economic plan.
1. A New Line Of Attack. I submit the socialism charge, presented hand in hand with the phrases "spread the wealth" or "wealth redistribution" and variations thereof, are recent additions to the McCain campaign. It all started with "Joe The Plumber."
When Sam Wurzelbacher (Joe isn't his real name) approached Obama, it was indeed Obama himself that used the phrase "spread the wealth." Certainly, had he said "spread the burden" it would have been more accurate in describing his tax plan and less controversial. I'm sure he regrets it.
Part of their conversation is as follows during their talk about taxation:
"Its not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off [...] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
Listen to Obama's explanation of his tax plan to Joe here:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a4_1224166209
It outlines Obama's tax plan fairly clearly. I ask that you listen to it in it's entirety.
Now let's look at the "Pre-Joe Era."
Google the transcripts of the speeches that McCain and Palin made at the Republican National Convention. Now cut and paste said speeches to any word processing program. Use the "find" function to scan for the words "socialism" or "socialist."
The words weren't used once.
Look for "wealth" and you'll find it in McCain's speech in the context of "oil wealth." You won't find "wealth redistribution" in either speech.
if this was an issue and relevant charge, how is it that these two and their speech writers MISSED mentioning it during these key speeches? It was the one moment they had the focus of the nation. Are they so incompetent that they wouldn't have brought up the issue of socialism? No. They're not. Back then it wasn't a part of the game plan. They didn't think of the "S" word until Joe came along.
The "S" word is a last feeble attempt--of many feeble attempts--to get something to stick to Obama. For the large part, it seems to be failing.
2. The Tax Plan. Sue may well have forwarded this to you, but here's a graphic from the Washington Post that outlines the tax plans of both candidates. Find your tax bracket there and then compare it with the others:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
The chart above is consistent with what Obama said in his conversation with Joe. His plan raises taxes...BUT ONLY ON THE RICH.
Possibly the thing that I find most disingenuous about the McCain campaign's message is that Obama is going to raise taxes...without specifying on whom the taxes are raised. Millions of Americans think Obama is going to raise their taxes, and he has never claimed he was going to do that on anyone making less than $250,000.
Again, view the "Joe The Plumber" video or listen to Obama's tax policies as expressed in all three debates. He is consistent. Neil Cavuto of FOX news, of all people, credits him with that.
Giving a tax break to the middle class and raising the taxes of the rich isn't socialism. And it has precedent.
The progressive tax system we now have was first instituted by Teddy Roosevelt, one of John McCain's (and one of my own) heroes. Roosevelt wrote:
"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune....and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood....
The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes...."
(http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/teddy-roosevelt-socialist-advo.html)
You'd think Teddy was talking to Joe the Plumber.
3. McCain Advocates Progressive Tax. I don't mean this as a crack on McCain, but look at the following video. In the last eight years McCain has used much the same rhetoric that Obama...and Roosevelt...have used:
Forgive the sarcastic title. I didn't pick it for that. Of course McCain is not a socialist. What he is claiming here (and elsewhere on YouTube, this is just a sample) is that the rich need to pay a higher percentage, as Roosevelt advocated and as other Presidents have effected. I struggle to make two mortgage payments. I seriously doubt a hedge fund manager living in a $10,000,000 home in Newport, Rhode Island, is going to go broke with an 8.7% increase. That is essentially what Roosevelt said, what Obama says, and what McCain used to say. They all advocate...dare I use the phrase? "Spreading the wealth around."
Palin herself has done just this by levying windfall taxes on oil corporations and giving the cash directly to Alaskans. I applaud her for this...but it is, by her own definition in her speeches attacking Obama, socialism. She said, "See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody." She, however, "redistributed" oil wealth to her consituents, and the natural resources in Alaska belong to the people collectively. It's all how one frames it.
4. Obama's Plan vs. Socialism's Goals. Obama's economic plan, aside from taxes, doesn't advocate socialism either. He isn't calling for government takeovers of industry. There is a big difference between the abolition of private property and the regulation of corporations...the latter of which is something that both he, McCain, and Bush are now calling for with the bailout of our banking and auto industries. Note too that Roosevelt, that Republican icon of progressivism, was one of the first to mandate governmental regulation of business. That isn't socialism.
Obama calls for tax relief for small businesses, most of whom make less than $250,000 a year. He further calls for an end to capital gains taxes for small businesses (I'm all for that). I can find nothing on this page, nor any of his speeches, nor any of his debates that suggest socialism as defined above:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Contrast that with the Socialist Party's website:
http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/economics.html
Where has Obama called for the cancellation of Third World debt? The abolishment of property taxes? Getting rid of sales tax? He hasn't.
This week Stephen Colbert interviewed the Socialist Party presidential candidate, Brian Moore, in order to determine whether Obama is a socialist. Moore said, with some pique, that Obama was a capitalist. The socialists themselves reject Obama:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article866862.ece
5. Obama Has The Support Of Conservatives. My final appeal is this: Were Obama a socialist, how is it that he has gained the support of of so many noted conservatives?
Lately there has been a hemorrhage of conservatives to the Obama camp. Christopher Buckley, son of the founder of the modern conservative movement; Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein; economist David Friedman, son of Nobel Laureates (and economic conservatives) Milton and Rose Friedman...the list is lengthy:
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341
Their arguments are best summed up by conservative Wick Allison. Allison, a former editor of the conservative flagship, The National Review, wrote this on Obama. Again, please take the time to read it:
http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod...s&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E
These are not people who support a socialist agenda. They're among the elite of their party, their best and their brightest.
Even conservatives who rail against Obama, such as Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol, admit his plans don't lead to socialism. Obama's plans are liberal, of course...otherwise Krauthammer and Kristol wouldn't lambast him. We expect them to do that. We can also expect Obama will be what Kristol said he would be on "The Daily Show" the other night. "He'll be a conventional liberal."
Conservative papers like the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, and the L.A. Times have endorsed Obama. Its the first time the Tribune has endorsed a Democrat in its 151 years of existence. Obama has a greater than two to one advantage in newspaper endorsements. Lest one say this is just the liberal media, remember that fifty-five of these papers backed Bush in 2004.
These are not news organizations that support socialism.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230
Last Reflections...
So who is Obama, Jack? He is now an elite socialist millionaire, his own wealth soon to spread? He is now a radical Christian muslim. He is now buddies with a domestic terrorist, and yet somehow has garnished the support of a large number of the Republican aristocracy. Do you see my point? Obama's critics are all over the map with contradictory attacks. He can not be all those things.
We have had twenty months to vet this candidate, and in that time the charge of "socialism" came up in the first week of October. It's a hollow charge, born of desperation and poor poll numbers...and it simply isn't true.
For many, this is the latest straw to grasp...a hasty rationalization hiding true feelings regarding Obama's race. For others still, the socialism charge paints a pale justification for a party identity that they've held all their lives. They were born Republican, their families vote Republican...and nothing anyone can say or do will change their minds. No data suffices, no argument sways.
I'm certain you don't fall into the first of those categories. I don't even know if your family is Republican or not, so I can't suggest the latter category describes you. Regardless, how you came to believing Obama was a socialist is irrelevant. But this you believe, though you've softened it to his "leaning that way".
This is the most important election of our lives, and I think neither of us would deny it. We owe it to ourselves, our children, and our country to approach this election with a spirit of deep research and serious bent. Granted, I have been guilty of sending on the caustic remark, the scathing cartoon. Flippancy and irreverence is my nature. We know this. This is nothing new.
And yet, I haven't been idle. I have taken much of this campaign seriously, and the research I've presented herein is a drop in the bucket to what I've done for the last six months. I say that without exaggeration, if one can measure the exaggeration of a metaphor. It has exhausted me, made me testy and confrontational. And too, we know this. And too, this is nothing new.
I leave this to you to read, and your vote to cast. It was good for me to write, even if the heart it addresses has hardened to its appeal.
With love from an even redder state than thine,
Steve Uncle
Last edited by a moderator:
