Obama's a socialist!?!

At first, I just laughed it off thinking that people would realize the stupidity of what they were saying.  But two years later, many Americans still call Obama a socialist.  I am going to explain why he isn't close to being a socialist and also try to determine why people have been mislead to believe this.

 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines socialism as (1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (2 a) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property (2 b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 

 

Many have tried to paint Obama as a socialist by pointing to the bailouts of Wall Street (TARP), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the automotive industry.  Anyone whose paid attention to the news over the past couple of years or has access to the Internet can immediately discover who was President when those "socialist" measures were taken.  That's right - George W. Bush.  At the start of his term, Obama was forced to put in an additional $60 billion above the $25 billion Bush put into GM, Chrysler, GMAC, and Chrysler Financial to save the auto companies.  Fortunately, it appears that GM and Chrysler have turned the corner and are actually operating with profits.  Thus, if this trend continues, the US should recoup its investment in the companies.

 

Washington Post columnist  E.J Dionne Jr. wrote a column praising the success of the auto bailout.  In it, he quotes a line that conservative Steve Forbes wrote in an article Politico stating, "GM's management is using solid, conservative, free-market management principles to get the company back to long-term profitability."  This is more evidence that Obama did not undertake a socialist takeover of the auto industry.    

 

An opinion piece from the Millwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel also examines if Obama is a socialist by comparing Obama's policies with the platform of the Socialist Party USA:

 

1) The socialists call for a steeply graduated income tax; Obama's is most modest, and only on the top 5%.

2) The socialists' health care plan would eliminate health insurance companies; Obama's won't.

3) The socialists call for public ownership of the drug companies, airlines, cable/satellite corporations and corporate farms; Obama suggests no such measures.

4) The socialists immediately would cut the military budget by 50% and close all bases abroad and most at home; Obama is increasing the military's budget.

5) The socialists would abolish the CIA, NSA and Department of Homeland Security; Obama does none of these.

6) The socialists would raise minimum wage to $15 an hour, legislate a 30-hour workweek with six weeks of paid vacation, provide a right to retire at 55 with a $25,000-a-year pension and cap salaries at 10 times the lowest-paid workers'; Obama is suggesting nothing like that.

7) The socialists would provide free day care from infancy and ensure that the student-to-teacher classroom ratio be 15 to 1; Obama has not proposed any such measures.

8) The socialists call for public ownership of all natural resources; Obama does not.

9) The socialists want public funding of newspapers and magazines; Obama has never suggested this.

 

Regarding Health Care Reform, Obama even stopped pushing for the Public Option in order to get the reforms passed.  And remember that the Public Option would have only given people an alternative to the private insurance companies for buying insurance.  It would not take over that industry.

 

Obama does believe in regulation and oversight of industries, but this has been a part of the American government since its founding (Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution).  Regulations can be good or bad, depending on how and why they were enacted.  Just remember that a lack of regulations and oversight led to crises such as the Great Depression, the recent recession, and the BP oil spill.

 

I would also like to direct you to an article by the free market advocating magazine, Reason, which does a much better job stating why Obama is not a socialist than I can do.

 

So, why do so many (right wing) people say or believe that Obama is a socialist?  Well, first I think that many people are uneducated on political topics.  They simply don't know the what socialism is.  Second, I think that right wing politicians and media members try to paint Obama as a socialist to gain support.  These claims are disingenuous or outright lies.  The media tried to paint many prominent democrats as elitist liberals in the past.  That argument became old and stale, so they have tried to play off people's past fears of the Soviets and communism by labeling Obama as a socialist.  The people who believe this typically don't even realize that there is a difference between socialism and communism.  

 

You can also provide many of these individuals with the information that I have presented above, and they will still believe that Obama is a socialist.  Why is that?  It is most likely due to confirmation bias.  Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias whereby one tends to notice and look for information that confirms one's existing beliefs, whilst ignoring anything that contradicts those beliefs.  People who already have a bias against Obama (such as him simply being a Democrat or black) will seek out news sources, such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, to support their bias against him.  When Rush Limbaugh says that Obama is a socialist, it confirms their beliefs, regardless of the truth. 

 

These media outlets actually prey upon this bias, as they are able to capitalize on this in the form of viewer/listener numbers for ad sales.  Many people don't like to question (or have others question) their belief systems, thus they will watch, listen or read media that supports their beliefs.  Once again, this is regardless of the truth.  In the act of doing this, these media outlets are also promoting the political agendas of their owners and or management.  An inaccuracy or lie is justifiable to these people if it returns them to power.