Is Obama a Socialist?

Answer: NO!  A real socialist answers the question and explains that Obama is just your typical neoliberal Democrat.  You can read it here. Quoting from the article:

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.

Along with this, I find it funny that people are referring to him as a Socialist because he redistributes money.  I don’t care who you are: you agree that redistribution is a good idea.  The question is how much redistribution would you tolerate.  The only people against total redistribution are anarchists, and in my whole life, I’ve only met one.  Obama is not a socialist.

About shaunmiller

I have just completed a visiting position as an assistant professor at Dalhousie University. My ideas are not associated with my employer; they are expressions of my own thoughts and ideas. Some of them are just musings while others could be serious discussions that could turn into a bigger project. Besides philosophy, I enjoy martial arts (Kuk Sool Won), playing my violin, enjoying coffee around town, and experimenting with new food.
This entry was posted in Government, Socialism. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Is Obama a Socialist?

  1. thekillerj says:

    You’re talking about the term “socialist” like it has definitive boundaries, rather than reside on a political continuum. His policies definitely have socialist qualities. Is he Mao? No. Is he Stalin? No. But, is he socialist? Sure looks like it.

  2. shaunmiller says:

    You’ve already contradicted yourself. You said that he has socialistic qualities. Fine, I’ll accept that. But then you say, therefore, he’s a socialist. Nope. The best you can say is he has socialistic qualities.

  3. thekillerj says:

    I never contradict myself, sucker. I’m saying the term socialist is relative. Obama’s policies are socialist relative to previous presidents. Same argument people use when they called Bush fascist. Compared to other presidents, he was fascist. Compared to Mussolini, probably not.

  4. shaunmiller says:

    I guess I would have to disagree with you on this one, but I think it just comes down to semantics. I find terms “socialist” and “fascist” absolutist terms. In order to be a socialist or fascist, one must have a criteria to follow. So Hitler would be the prime example of a fascist. I wouldn’t consider Bush fascist, but perhaps fascistic. By the way, whenever people use terms like “He’s such a fascist” or “What a fascist pig” or “That bastard is such a fascist cop,” I absolutely hate it when people just casually throw out those words. When that happens, we dilute those words and take out their original meaning.

    It’s kind of like the term “rich.” It’s an absolute term and in order for you to be rich, you have to follow a certain criteria (namely, how much wealth you have). But I think “richer” is relative because you can compare it with something else. With this, we could say that Bush isn’t a fascist, but maybe fascistic. I would say the same thing with Obama: he’s no socialist, but he may be socialistic.

    I’ll give another example. The CIA isn’t James Bond, but they are James Bond-ish.

  5. The new James Bond movies are awesome.

  6. shaunmiller says:

    Another article explaining why Obama is not a socialist and that he’s your typical centrist Democrat.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s