Socialist? Are You Serious?

Yes, President Obama, it is a serious question. The Washington Times reports that when asked, "Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?" by none other than the New York Times, "It was hard for [President Obama] to believe that [the New York Times reporter was] entirely serious about that socialist question," and thus he did not offer a simple "yes" or "no."

He became worried that he may have not answered clearly, so President Obama called the New York Times back and offered a baffling explanation which I can only explain through the theory of cognitive dissonance. In his erudite and lawyerly justification, he used the fearsome and sophisticated "it was like that already" defense, claiming:

1. That President Bush laid the groundwork for the current trajectory of the economic recovery effort;
2. That "we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles";
3. That "the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people [is that] if [sic] coming in, the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it."

My response is as follows:

1. President Bush's economic performance as president was far from truly "conservative," as I would define it. He ran as a "compassionate conservative" (populist), passed a huge entitlement bill (as Obama observes), and ended his term by spending a massive amount of taxpayer money probably in vain. To continue doing so would mean further spending--not enough to label one a socialist per se, but not helping to clear one's name of the charge. Also, President Obama ran a campaign that constantly labeled Senator John McCain as a third Bush term. Justifying one's actions by claiming that they are simply a continuation of the former president's policies does not seem to be "change we can believe in."

2. To say that market principles are in use here is an entirely ludicrous argument. It's laughable, really, and flat out wrong. It's like yelling at the top of your lungs, "THE SKY IS BRIGHT PINK!" Saying it louder doesn't make it true. This administration has virtually nationalized banks, wants to nationalize health care, eventually intends to raise taxes to investment-stifling levels, and would love nothing more than to legalize the bullying of all workers in this country into union labor. Mr. President, if you were really following market principles, do you think the market would be behaving with such a stunning lack of confidence?

3. What a crock. An abject lie. How can one make such a statement after running for office on the opposite principle? President Obama campaigned on a promise of "change." He proposed a toned-down national healthcare system, promised to hike tax rates for the rich (to expand government), and promised to buy votes Richard Daley-style with tax credits, probably more than anything else to increase Democratic ranks (already accomplished by registering Tony Romo and the rest of the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Las Vegas through ACORN). Before the stock market began crashing, Obama had proposed (through various speeches) $1 TRILLION in new spending over 4 years--seems like a dream now, but was outlandish at the time.

A "socialist" is one who believes that the government should drive markets and control means of production as the means to a more egalitarian (redistributive) end. President Obama's answer (or lack thereof) to the New York Times does absolutely nothing to convince me that he is not just that. The bottom line is, when you have to call the New York Times back to make clear that you're no Karl Marx, something's gone very wrong.

An Interesting Compromise Idea

I just saw a piece on FOX News discussing the possibility of negotiating with Russia to help stop Iran from becoming nuclear.  Apparently, President Obama sent a secret letter to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev last month that made the case that if Russia were to help the U.S. eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat, the United States would have no need for an Eastern European missile defense system, and therefore would abandon it.  Russia has apparently balked at President Obama's proposal.

It's an interesting idea: perhaps with Russian support, we could actually achieve our goal of eliminating Iran's nukes without action by only the U.S. and Israel.  However, is it a good idea to abandon a program that can protect us from not only Iran, but also threats from other relatively unstable or belligerent nations in the region?

Maybe President Obama thought that by offering this deal--which he probably thought (I guess) would not be accepted--that he could convince the world community (and at least some Russian politicians) that our only intent for the missile defense program is to protect ourselves from Russia.  But, 1) I don't think it's our only intent, and 2) I don't think President Obama is that shrewd or gutsy.  Regardless, it's an interesting compromise idea.