A socialist?

Patriot Girl links to an article here by Donald J. Boudreaux that asks the question "Is Barack Obama really a Socialist?" It was a worthwhile article about the dangers of "Socialist-lite", but he's wrong when he answers his own question:

• No. At least not in the classic sense of the term. "Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks. ... A principal promise of socialism was to replace the alleged uncertainty of markets with the comforting certainty of a central economic plan.

The author's first point is wrong for two reasons. First, while there may be a scholastic definition of socialism that fits the one he presents, I'm unconvinced that it has such a narrow and specific meaning. Socialism can be what he says, but it can also refer to the entire left wing of the political spectrum. In my understanding, Marxism, Chinese Communism, Socialism (with a capital S) and Social-Democracies all fall under the broader category of socialist since they are based on a concept of wealth distribution and equality of results rather than equality before the law. The second reason I think he's wrong is that even if I give him the first point - that socialism is based on government ownership of the means of production - I still think Obama qualifies. When the Government gets an "Ownership Stake" in the private market, it does own and control the means of production. I've heard this argument before, and it sounds pretty lame. Just because Obama isn't quoting directly from Marx and Engels (currently) it doesn't mean that he - and most of congress for that matter - isn't advocating socialism.

Now let's take on his second point, that socialism tries to "replace the alleged uncertainty of markets with the comforting certainty of a central economic plan." Trying to replace market uncertainty with central economic planning is exactly what our loving leaders in Washington are doing with the economic bailouts. What else could it possibly be? They've stated as much publicly. They're trying to get the market to settle down by heading off the failure of business that by all rights should fail. You say you gave bad loans to people that you knew couldn't pay them back? No worries, Uncle Sugar-daddy will guarantee them. Mortgaged your future profit margins by promising unrealistic pensions and health care? (albeit while being blackmailed by unions) No worries, we'll spend $25 Billion covering up the problem for a bit without doing anything to fix the systemic problems.

Sorry, but from where I sit, Obama is not only a socialist, he's just a 5-year plan away from Communist.

The source of my anger

I'm truly angry about the outcome of this election, but until now I've had trouble pinning down why. I've said that I'm angry about the stupidity of the general electorate, but that doesn't quite explain it. I know that stupidity simply exists, it's not a thing to be angry about but rather simply a fact to deal with. It occurred to me that it might be the cheating. I hate cheaters, and I hate feeling that I've been cheated, especially when it's something that matters as significantly as an election. (No, I'm not conspiratorial, but it does bother me that every election brings more and more stories of dead voters registering 15 times in Ohio and I can't stand that it could continue to exist). But I don't think there were enough of those votes to sway this election, so I'm not really mad about that, either. I hate that an election about ideology, truth, and governing philosophy is daily diminished to a racial landmark in the media. But again, that's not enough to explain the depths of what I'm feeling.

These questions aren't new. I've been distraught for a while at the liberal direction that my country has been taking. I've been bothered since Reagan by the lack of truly visionary leadership on the right. But tonight I realized the source.

I can't leave. I have no options, and the frustration is killing me. Every election year we here a bunch of liberals claiming that if the Republican wins, they'll leave the country, but the cowards never do. You never hear a conservative say that. It's because we have nowhere else to go. As bad as it's gotten since the 80's we're still the most free country in the world. That sounds like a compliment, but it's not. It's a lament. If I found somewhere with more freedom and better protections of my liberty, I'd leave in a heartbeat, because America is an idea, not a land. But I don't have the option. Liberals do.

And THAT is the source of my anger: If you like socialized health care, redistribution of wealth, public transportation and high taxes, more power to you. Go to Sweden. Go to England. Go anywhere in Europe. But don't ruin my America because it's all I've got. If I ruin your America, there's always France.

It's not all OK

The results of this election are not easy to face. I listened to McCain's concessions speech in abject anger at him. He spoke the way that he did during the campaign, and it showed exactly why he lost. He had the attitude and the disposition of a loser. Since the moment he was nominated, it was obvious that if McCain won, it would not be of his own doing. He was always the wrong man; his only redeeming quality is that he is not Barack Obama.

So I turned to the political blogs that I have followed so closely to see their reactions, and I'm even sad at their conciliatory tone. I understand the patriotic intent behind it. But Glenn Reynolds, Jonah Goldberg, and others who seemingly understand the depth of our current danger are still congratulating Obama. They recommend an attitude of "he's still my president". I get it, but this time I cannot agree.

A patriotic rallying behind the man elected to the office of president makes sense if you believe doing so is in the interest of the country. If, by the patriotic good intentions of the remaining conservatives Obama's presidency manages to only be a minor disaster rather than a major one, it will only make the resulting depression deeper and longer. If he is not opposed vehemently and at every turn, we will only lose further ideological ground to those who are already succeeding in pushing us socialist. To congratulate him as a historical candidate and a "good man" (in McCain's words) is to give credence to the the lie that his race matters or that his ideas are not evil when I believe that they are.

I don't know where this is going. In every way that I can, I will now push to go "John Galt" at the same time that I espouse the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal liberty. I will teach my son right from wrong and the honor of making his own way, while doing my best to bleed the social services system of any money that I can. The more quickly and spectacularly it fails, the easier it will be to teach a new generation of individualists. Socialism, redistribution of wealth, internationalism, and cowardice in the face of our enemies are not what America is. I will not support it in the name if equananimity.

I don't think the country is going to fall apart tomorrow. I realize that this isn't apocalyptic. But it isn't good.

To support the constitutional process of electing a president while ignoring the damage such a president (and congress) will do to the constitution is very short sighted. The American People deserve the government that they elect. It doesn't mean that I do.

First thoughts

The most immediate effects of these election results are this:

1. I think I may have trouble sleeping tonight.
2. I owe somebody a case of beer.

Keeping the Poor Poor

We have a guest blogger of sorts today. A friend who is much more eloquent than I sent out the following as an email. I'm posting it here with his permission:

Glenn Beck got me thinking about this from his radio show today.

You've all heard the argument, however petty, that claims the Republican Party is the party of the rich. It's a popular bumper sticker among Liberal voters. Well, let's suppose that's actually true. From some perspectives (moronic though I may find them), it certainly looks true. It feels true. So let's take that and run with it. The Republican Party's constituents are all rich. And if they're not rich, then at least they're greedy and want to become rich. Right? Ok, so in order to get into power, the Republicans need to keep their constituents happy...i.e. keep the rich people rich and find ways to make the non-rich but greedy people rich, too. Makes sense, right?

So, the Republicans = support for rich people and corporate greed (to keep this exercise going, please disregard the fact that rich people and corporations do most of the job creating in this country). Ok. Let's look at the other side of our two-party system here. Where, then, does the Democratic party get their power? Who are the Democrats' constituents? Do they go after rich people, too? Well, except for Hollywood, George Soros, and a hand-full of others out there, the answer is "no". They promote themselves as the champions of the poor, and maybe you could argue the middle class. Ok. We'll give you that one, too. So, if the Dems get in office and have their way, are they going to attempt to uplift their constituents and try to make everybody rich, or even to get out of the way so people can make themselves rich? Are they going to be working to improve the lives of all Americans? They may think so, but their goals conflict with each other. The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is a collection of politicians. And no matter how good their hearts or intentions, the only way those politicians can stay in power and continue to inflict...excuse me, enact the changes they want for the betterment society as they see it (ex. France), is to maintain their voting base. If the poor or middle-class get rich, then wouldn't they switch teams to the GOP - the party of the rich? I imagine that not all, but most would do so in order to protect what they have. It's human nature. So, say it with me, if the Republicans want to keep rich people rich in order to stay in power, then in order for the Dems to stay in power, don't they need to keep poor people poor?

Sounds silly, doesn't it? No, of course they don't want that. They're the party for the poor and middle class, right? Sure, they tell us all the time. They wouldn't say it if it weren't true. Well, for argument's sake, if you wanted to keep people from becoming too successful but still interested in keeping you in power, how would you do it? For those of you who said, "Voter Fraud", good answer, but that's not what I'm talking about right now. The answer I'm looking for is, at least to me, an obvious one - make them dependent upon you. Promise them things like tax cuts for 95% of Americans but ignore the fact that 95% of Americans don't pay taxes in the first place. Don't mention that you're going to let Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010, so by doing nothing, our taxes will automatically rise. Poll popular ideas first, and then talk about those as if they are your own. Don't worry, you don't have to say the same things to the same people. Instill feelings of class-envy and jealousy by playing Robin Hood - promising to tax the "unjustly" rich and give to the poor, and define for all of America a threshold for when you have "enough" money (currently fluctuating somewhere between $150K and $300K). Promise inclusion and welcome everyone into a hate-free environment - unless you're one of the other guys. Raise taxes for the rich, and challenge their patriotism if they balk at the idea. Promise health care for everybody. Promise affordable housing for everybody. Work to help the country by taking over everyone's 401-K's and rolling them all under the social security administration. And all this is a pill more easily swallowed when you get a smooth, suave, steel-spined spokesman to sell it. Neither does it hurt when most major entertainment sources blindly follow your agenda without asking any of the tough questions. But occasionally, one of those tough questions does happen to sneak through. And if it makes its way to the news and you're running the risk of having your flock of sheep start to wake up and question you, just simply fire up the mob again. It's easy. All you have to do is discredit the questioner with claims of racism, right-wing political propaganda, past financial or legal trouble, or anything else handy, which will effectively shift the focus back on the them and not on you.

I don't know...maybe it's me. Or maybe it's easier for me to see since I'm on the outside of this party, looking in. Both parties are guilty of seeing what they want and ignoring what they don't want to think about or can justify for some "greater good". But, while the Republican party and its candidate are by NO means perfect, or even what I would consider to be conservative, how can anyone with an ounce of ambition or self respect choose to be lied to and held back by the current incarnation of the Democratic Party, only so they can turn around and take care of you?

Update: Related video link from a poster in the comments Here. Not the style I'm accustomed to, but very well put. He makes the same point as my friend at the beginning, and then goes on to criticize Democrats and The One on lots of other things.

Megyn Kelly inerviews an Obama stooge

This is awesome. Watch the video.

(link from Instapundit)

Debate

I listened to the debate the other night. Well, I tried to listen to the debate the other night, but it was too painful to stick with. There's nothing more frustrating than knowing that you're going to vote for somebody that you really don't like. I really don't like John McCain. There's no way around it, the guy is a liberal. He can't espouse real conservatism because he doesn't even understand it. His name is on the piece of legislation that has done more direct damage to our constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts. But at least he doesn't hate his country.

Listening to the "debate" - which it can hardly be called when both candidates try to be a better liberal than the other - it is painfully obvious that McCain cannot explain a conservative point of view. Rather than getting government out of the way, he just wants to be a less aggressive liberal. Even on an issue where McCain was right (Fannie/Freddie) he fails to pin the blame when he's presented with the opportunity. It's pathetic, but whatever. At least he doesn't hate his country.

When given the opportunity to explain that "Yes, I am for lowering taxes on the rich", he fails to explain that if a multi-millionaire gets a $700,000.00 tax break, he could hire 15 people with that money. How many jobs are created by cutting taxes on people who earn $30,000 per year!? Instead he let's Obama's claim that the rich need to "give their fair share" go unchallenged. But at least he doesn't hate his country

I'll even question McCain's honor. I'm tired of hearing that he's such an honest and honorable buy when the man met his current wife by sleaping with her while married to another woman. I thought we were done with that when Clinton left office. But hey, at least he doesn't hate his country.

John McCain is the best democrat that's run for President in years. He wants to raise taxes (but do it smarter), he wanted a government bailout of a private problem (but with less pork), he want's to close the "gunshow loophole" and limit private property (but allow you to keep your guns), he want's to give citizenship to illegals (after securing the border), he's already curbed your freedom of speech (but got money out of politics... wait, never mind). But at least he doesn't hate his country.

John McCain believes in global warming. That would be the straw for this camel if I didn't think the other candidate was threatening to shoot the camel directly. He's given up on the idea that the left's global warming theory just might be completely full of crap, and is rather going along with only marginally less socialistic fixes than Obama. During the "debate" he was given a question about whether we should promote alternative sources of energy by subsidizing a Manhattan Project style search or by subsidizing a thousand home garages. His answer was a squishy, muddled, socialistic mess. He should have said "Neither. The government should not be subsidizing anything of the sort, but can help by getting out of the way and letting the market do what it's supposed to do. Allow oil to maintain it's rightful place as the cheapest and most efficient source of transportation energy, and when technology finds a way to beat that efficiency somebody will simultaneously find a way to make money doing so." but that kind of political spine from somebody who has created the illusion of having one is too much to ask. We got squishy, not clarity. But at least he doesn't hate his country.

I'm going to hold my nose and vote for John McCain, and when he wins, I'll immediately start working against him. I don't like John McCain at all. He ran on a record of constantly undermining conservative principles to compromise with liberalism, and compromising with evil is never a sign of strength. But my other option is voting for evil itself, and that's not really an option at all.