ListenWhy Is Socialism Scary Again?
October 8, 2009
Last week, one of my guests on San Diego Week, the TV program I host, took aim at the media’s “conservative white talk show hosts,” Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Her complaint was that their inflammatory rhetoric contributed to the recent escalation in hate crimes in the U.S. After the show, I was approached – or perhaps reproached is a better word here - by a long-time associate who complained that the critical remarks about Limbaugh and Beck were unfair since both men were doing the nation a service. They were warning us about the danger of socialism taking over the federal government.
Above: Brian Stern of Belgrade, Montana protests outside a town hall meeting on health care attended by President Barack Obama in a hangar at Gallatin Field Airport August 14, 2009 in Belgrade, Montana.
Video
Above: Ethnic groups are targeted by white supremacy groups in East County. The editors discuss possible reasons for the about 30 percent increase in hate crimes.
Since my colleague is a responsible and capable person, I decided to check out those warnings. And, sure enough, there’s plenty of evidence that the two super-stars are busily frightening their audiences about the change that President Obama is trying to bring to America. Not since the Cold War has the fear of socialism spread so rapidly and penetrated so deeply among otherwise rational folks.
The problem is that this devil word is not clearly understood. For some, socialism equates to public ownership of and equal access to resources. More extremely, it is interpreted as President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress wanting to abolish private property and take over the economy of the United States. For others, it means state control of capital and the complete nationalization of production and distribution. For those who confuse socialism (the economic theory) with Soviet communism which combines totalitarianism, drastic curtailment of human rights and the existence of only one political party, it is a fearsome prospect which must be smothered along with its leaders.
Unfortunately, fear comes with blinders. We already have public ownership and most of us like it a lot. We have public schools and universities, public highways, Medicare/Medicaid, the V.A., the good old U.S. Postal Service, and Social Security. Twenty-six years ago, when Ronald Reagan worked for a huge FICA tax hike to save Social Security, chances are he wasn’t called a socialist. When George W. Bush poured record amounts of money into government spending, there was no whisper that he was a socialist.
So what’s different this time? Could it be that we are so tantalizingly close to real change in one giant system that touches everyone – health care – that it threatens the corporate status quo? This includes those who are so suspicious of government-tainted anything that they’ve lost their logical thinking and are susceptible to scare tactics and the desperation maneuvers of the weakened party-out-of-power?
Could it be that even those older citizens who already are dependent on government-provided health care have been so successfully targeted with threats of death panels, medical decisions from demon bureaucrats, and medical rationing based on political party registration that they have judged change as something bad. Perhaps it is socialism knocking at the door and thus it must be bad, although it sure looks like Medicare. These are passionate times when emotion rules. This is when cautious, clear thinking is king and homework is the most effective weapon.
Comments
Kevin // October 8, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. ― 1 month, 1 week ago
There is no fear of Socialism here in the USA it is just a fact of life now. Neither one of the Consumer Protection Agencies, nor any government program is showing successful statistics towards real social benefit! Why do you think socializing medicine is going to be anything different? Welfare programs are all supposed to be designed as temporary measures when a person has no other options; but welfare has become a way for liberals to create pseudo sympathy for people who need to face up to their own necessities, which is the mother of invention. Giving individuals endless handouts doesn’t benefit individuals, it feeds the parasites who re-distribute the funds which rarely get to the person it is intended to serve. I agree with one thing being said here and that is that Republicans are as guilty of socialism as Democrats, and oligarchy is the tool which drives it all. History shows that a form of totalitarianism soon follows once socialism takes power.
Strong individuals, schools and government that fairly reward those of us who stand on our own feet and don’t rely on social programs are the foundation of true civilization. Without those of us who are completely independent there would be no social programs! Socialism is the over burdening of the individuals to benefit one mob or another; this is exactly what is happening here in the USA now. The real solution to all of this is to put all government run programs and funded departments on merit pay, and fund them only if they are showing successes! The other thing that needs to be done is to completely get rid of insurance and let the free market dictate trade between doctors and patients. A lot of doctors are already refusing to take insurance because of the dictating factors that inherently exist; if you think government run healthcare is going to be more honest and less abused you are dreaming. Those of you who have government funded healthcare already know how easy it is to be a hypochondriac and abuse the system because you have no necessity to take care of yourselves!
( comment permalink | suggest removal )
Kevin // October 8, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ― 1 month, 1 week ago
Let me make it simple for you! When the schools fail to teach all individuals to survive and succeed on their own and the government has to create program after program to correct the failures of our education system then we are Socialist. The root word of Socialism, Socialized, and Socialist isn’t Social by mistake. Make no mistake Socializing is the exact opposite to supporting individual freedoms which the US Constitution was intended to protect! Even our local governments want to create tenant landlord laws to invade private property and privacy because the majority is becoming nothing but a bunch of lazy people with un-deserved entitlements. Obama’s healthcare is just the nail in the coffin for the doctors who are supposed to be our elite thinkers.
( comment permalink | suggest removal )
Kevin // October 8, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. ― 1 month, 1 week ago
The lawyers and judges whom back all this are parasites and leaches to the full degree that they can be already.
( comment permalink | suggest removal )
Cristobal // October 8, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. ― 1 month, 1 week ago
Scare tactics aside on both sides of the issue, the underlying source of the "pushback" is coming from at least three realities.
First, the ability to choose is fundamentally American. The current health plan that proposes to cover 94% of us is over-reaching (especially when only 13% of the population is currently uncovered), negates that freedom of choice, and pushes us all into a mediocre middle game that says "you're not capable of making good choices, so we'll do it for you." (With that arrogance of supposed-competence and expertise, why doesn't Congress tell me which cell phone plan is best for me!?)
Second, Congress happily slept (dreaming of the contributions it could exact from the financial industry!) while the financial meltdown was in the making. Now, that same Congress is attempting to position itself as "get tough" while it really knows no more about economics and the unintended consequences of its legislation and regulation, than it did about steroids in baseball. That lack of economic "cause and effect" thinking is resulting in unprecedented and irreparable government spending that will further the recession and push the entire U.S. economy to a mediocre middle game on the world playing field.
Finally, the government bureaucracy has consistently demonstrated its incompetence (effectiveness and economics) at most of what it touches - - the military excepted. That bureaucracy is touching too much of American life. Health care is intensely personal and the government's role ("the best predictor of future performance is past performance") is expected to be invasive, more so causing the reactions we've seen, than the scare tactics coming from either side.
( comment permalink | suggest removal )
Cheznation // October 9, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. ― 1 month, 1 week ago
all capitalists are aware that the system is a mix of private enterprise and free markets with public functions facilitated with a mix of taxes and regulation
the debate is what should be private and what should be public. If the ratio is 67 private/33 public, and this balance was arrived at over a long period of time of economic development and political debate, and some people want to change the ratio to 60/40 (leftist democrats), then this shift will be contested
the reporter of this article argues that people who are against socialism are stupid, which means she is a socialist who is unable to understand why her religion is not supported by others
the reporter might consider the following thought exercise: assume that the people she is critiquing are smarter than her (the rule is the dumber side is the one wearing the "blinders"). Given this environment, how would she like the people she critiques to view her? With respect, or with derision?
( comment permalink | suggest removal )
dseaman // October 9, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ― 1 month, 1 week ago
It is sad and scary for me to see such anger and vitriol since the election of Obama. It seems there is some confusion about what 'socialism' means but I think the more specific problem is that people's faith and respect for our elected representatives is in tatters.
With the economic collapse built up over the last 10 (mostly Republican) years and the apparent inability of our federal government to head it off, we citizens are left very vulnerable.
I feel we are victims of forces over which we have little control. And we are looking for control. With the size and complexity of our current civilization it's unlikely that many of us can just depend on ourselves. We are interconnected and interdependent. We need to find better ways to talk to each other and, together, solve the problems we face as a society.
( comment permalink | suggest removal )
MattthewCScallon // October 29, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ― 3 weeks, 1 day ago
"We already have public ownership and most of us like it a lot. We have public schools and universities, public highways, Medicare/Medicaid, the V.A., the good old U.S. Postal Service, and Social Security."
First off, you're holding up public schools as something most of us like is a red herring. Most of us are stuck paying for incompetence of public schools with our tax dollars, and many of us, especially those of us in neighborhoods of color, would rather send our children to Catholic school, were not all of the tax money going to the public schools.
Public highways have become increasingly toll roads run by private companies, so that too is a straw man.
Medicaid and Medicare are routinely exploited for overpayment, to the point that even the left-leaning "60 Minutes" had to report on it.
The good old Postal Service has escalated postage rates so often that I'm stilling using stamps from 5 increases ago, and still they are running at a deficit.
As far as Social Security, what Social Security? This is FDR's ultimate Ponzi scheme that, because of the declining birth rate and rising abortion rate, there are no longer enough younger workers paying into the system in order to prop it up.
"When George W. Bush poured record amounts of money into government spending, there was no whisper that he was a socialist."
I guess you weren't following Citizen Voices back then on this very web site. There was plenty of socialism complaints from both the bloggers and the commenters. As well, none other than Glenn Beck complained that we can't have capitalism in times of proserity but socialism in times of decline. He was a different network back then, so that might be why you may not heard it. It was, nonetheless, far more than a whisper.
( comment permalink | suggest removal )