What to Look for in a Socialist
I recently ran into a blog that was pro-Obama, which, declared that his association throughout his lifetime with socialists, communists, radicals, and a convicted terrorist or two was just a matter of politics. They stated that he needed these associations to further his career and get him where he wanted to go, but that he, in no way, subscribed to their beliefs. This, I assume, was supposed to be a glowing report on his crafty, smooth political maneuvers.
Apart from the fact that that that is hardly a great character report, it's also - well- bull.
The following was in the Washington Post, March 15, 2009 It was written by Billy Wharton, a member of the Socialist Party. (Notice that this was written in March.)
The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.
The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to re-energizing productive sectors of the economy.
Our representatives are declaring with vigor that neither they or the Pres wants a single payer health system, however, in his campaign, Obama said that that is just what he wanted. A lot has changed in the last few months. So, the socialists have given us some guidelines to look for in the future. How many of these are we getting a glimpse of already.
The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.
Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. The Washington Post By Billy Wharton
Sunday, March 15, 2009; Page B01

No comments:
Post a Comment