Barack Obama is a Socialist

Is Barack Obama a socialist? I've been hearing discussion on this subject all over right-wing TV, radio, and blogs since before he ever became President. The left denounces this as paranoia, and many on the moderate right disagree with the accusations that he is a socialist. However, I beg to differ. Barack Obama is indeed a socialist. There is no doubt about this in my mind. However, is this paranoid rambling? No. You'll see why later, but for now let's focus on why Barack is a socialist.

Barack Obama supports the idea of government taking from some by force, in the form of taxation, and giving to others. That is a form of socialism since it is forced sharing of resources. He also favors collective pools of income in the case of programs such as healthcare, so he is a socialist. The bottom line is that because he favors forcing people to share their earnings with other people by force and collective programs he is a socialist. It is quite clear that to Mr. Obama, private property only exists on a utilitarian basis and is subject to the community's demands. If he did not think that private property served a utilitarian purpose, there isn't any doubt that he would seek to abolish it. If he didn't think this he wouldn't support all the government intrusions on private property, whether in the form of taxation, regulation, or whatever, that he does. Because he does not recognize private property as an inalienable right, he is a socialist.

Now, is Barack Obama as socialist as some people? No. Socialism is on a spectrum. Some people, like Josef Stalin, are complete socialists, others like Obama are moderate socialists. It is quite clear to me, for instance, that John Edwards is much more socialist than Barack Obama. It is also clear that while Obama wants to make America more socialistic than it is currently, he will fall a far cry from making it as socialistic as Sweden. In Britain, the least socialistic country in Europe, Barack Obama would be considered a member of the far right. He favors expanded coverage through government for healthcare, but also favors leaving much of the system private. In Britain he would be accused of the unthinkable, trying to privatize the NHS, if he had such a policy. He supports the death penalty, which is considered a radical-right position elsewhere. And while he supports more gun control than Republicans, he also favors far less than is present in Europe. I think that these are his genuine positions and not a cover for his further socialism. If Barack Obama was a European, he'd be a conservative. Since he's an American he's a liberal. Europe is more liberal (in the American sense of the word, over there "liberal" means "libertarian" and the left call themselves "socialists" or "social democrats."

Nonetheless, it is bogue to say that Obama is a socialist whereas Republicans are not. Republicans favor giving money to Big Business in the form of corporate subsidies, they favor all kinds of "public-private" partnerships. They also favor giving money to big industries as part of the defense budget. They also support the welfare state in many cases, albeit not as much as liberals. Also, that whole "family values" program is a bit socialistic, in saying that it is government's business how you live and the funding to enforce that has to come from somewhere. Indeed, if everything the Religious Right wants banned or restricted were banned or restricted, government would have to increase to almost totalitarian levels and the funding would too. If the social conservative part of the Republican platform were taken seriously, government would be far bigger than even under a John Edwards administration. So don't call Obama a "socialist" unless you take the board out of your own eye.

Has this been a defense of Obama? Yes it has. I am defending Barack Obama against some of the absurdist attacks of the right. Does this mean I agree with him? No, I am not here to defend his socialism by saying Republicans are socialists too, I am totally opposed to it. As a libertarian I believe in the non-aggression principle, meaning I reject the initiation of force to achieve political, social, or personal goals. Socialism requires the initiation of force, whether the socialism is in the name of helping Big Business build bombs or helping the poor, it isn't justified in my mind just because of the force component. I am just asking Republicans to quit throwing this word around until they quit being socialists, at which point they will be libertarians. As much as I may disagree with Obama, at the very least I want the discourse to be fair to him and it isn't fair when people are using a pejorative against him that they use themselves. Most people are to a degree socialists. I, as a complete anti-socialist, am in the minority and I admit it. Quit using "socialism" as a dirty word until you are with me.