The March Against Socialism

Don’t get your hopes up, Mr. Cusack. These people are not opposed to massive, socialistic gov’t interference – they’re opposed to massive, socialistic gov’t interference at the behest of a Democrat, and they are only opposed to that because they were told to oppose it by talk-show-host celebrities.

Opposition is entirely warranted, but the opposition you see here is manufactured and disingenuous. These people were silent during the massive expansion of federal power under Bush, and will be silent again the next time a Republican is in office. The fact is that when member of party (Y) implements or promotes policy (X), it is (Y) that determines whether most people object or praise, rather than (X) – and that is the case here.

America doesn’t have a Trotskyist foreign policy. It has an Americanist foreign policy and always has done.

These people are at least protesting against an American President. The problem is that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is one of degree, not of substance.

These photos appear to be in Washington. But I thought the capital of the United States was Tel Aviv?

I’ll have to agree with Mr. Toddard; most of these protesters, and American conservatives in general, did not protest the neocon foreign/defense policy because it was their chosen party proposing it. The United States is scarcely a thoughtful nation; it is rather a blindly obedient nation. The people thereof generally buy the political dogmas of their preferred political party as transmitted through their varied journals and television and “talk radio” programs without reservations–the basic point of all of them being that we’re good and the other party is bad. Nuances or shades of grey do not exist; either one is a party man 100% of the time, or else he’s a member of the opposition.

Thus to the Republicans, the recent corporate bailouts were acceptable when Bush gave them, but not when Obama did; vice versa with the Democrats. The same reasoning would apply regarding the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Exceptions to this mode of thinking in the U.S. are quite few.

Andrew, I’m deeply sorry to see you align yourself with this kind of misinformation & ignorance.

Perhaps ‘kd’ can explain why opposition to increased centralization of an already overpowerful government is “misinformed” and “ignorant”?

Glenn Beck would have extended an invitation to Ron Paul, but…they don’t necessarily see eye to eye:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U

Liz S.,

Opposition to increased centralization of government is admirable; imagining that President Obama is a Marxist communist is either misinformation, willful ignorance, or ideological blindness.

Please be rational.

By the way, I tend to agree with S. L. Toddard.

Well, I don’t think he’s a Marxist communist per se, but he and most of Washington (both Democratic & Republican, as Cusack was I think trying to point out) are, if not outright socialists, then at least folks who seem willing to put us on the creeping road to socialism.

As others have pointed out, we’re basically seeing a coming-together of socialist & capitalist tendencies. Big Business knows it’s much easier to make money by using the government as a means of coercion than by actually having to convince customers to buy a product. Look at Massachusetts where that chucklehead Mitt Romney passed a law making it illegal not to have health insurance.

One of the myths we’ve got to challenge is that business is somehow pro-free-market. Most large-scale businesses in America are intent on maximizing profit without any rational bounds. They seek monopoly, not choice. The government is willing to go along with Big Business because any introduction of coercion, even if in support of private interests, is ipso facto an increase in the size of the government’s power, and there is no such thing as a bad increase in government power in the minds of these folks.

I’m not even sure it’s a conscious thing on Obama’s part and the part of the rest of this trend’s followers. It’s more of an Evil Spirit that a coherent and conscious intellectual proposition.

But yeah, Obama is basically a socialist, or at least isn’t functionally different from a socialist in any meaningful way.

What I think the love of my life, Lady Liz, is trying to say is that disputes over whether Obama is a “marxist,” “communist,” “socialist,” “liberal,” or whatever are meaningless semantic disputes. He could call himself apple pie for all we care, but if we judge him by his actions rather than by anyone’s words, then Obama’s actions are socialist.

Mr. Glorfindel & Mr. KD, I agree with Rob that your points are essentially semantic ones. People call Bush conservative and Obama a Marxist; I don’t particularly care what they’re called since terminology has effectively ceased to have meaning in this regard. All I know is they’re bad, and I’m against them.

As for Mr. Toddard & Mr. Palardy, while perhaps I didn’t express myself as clearly, yours is exactly the point I was making.

Thank you, Liz, for the thoughtful response. Of course you did not say Obama was a Marxist communist, but the signs in the photographs Andrew posted do indeed say he is. The fact is (Mr. Harrington, take note) words have meanings.

I fully agree that we are seeing a coming-together of “socialist & capitalist tendencies” — & make no mistake there are many aspects of BOTH that I find troubling. But I cannot say that this coming-together of two ideologies comes from an “Evil Spirit” thought I do believe the result has been & continues to be evil. War, greed, death, poverty & suffering.

Obama gave billions of taxpayer’s money to private banks & investment corporations. Socialism? He’s on the verge of creating a huge capital boon for private insurance companies. Socialism? On the other hand, I do believe Obama, the man, has socialist sympathies. At this point however, he has continued most of the Bush administration’s economic & foreign policies.

“Obama gave billions of taxpayer’s money to private banks & investment corporations. Socialism? He’s on the verge of creating a huge capital boon for private insurance companies. Socialism?”

Yes, socialism! You don’t think these massive subsidies are socialist measures?

Mr. Harrington,

Are you perhaps missing the fact that I said “private” banks & investment corporations as well as “private” insurance companies?

To offer a relevant aside, it used to be said of apartheid in South Africa that it meant oppression for the blacks, capitalism for the English & Jews, and socialism for the Afrikaners.

Afrikaners got the cushy government civil service jobs as well as controlled the large parastatal corporations (Like Eskom for electricity, Yskor for steel, and Armscor for arms manufacturing), the English & Jews ran most of private enterprise, and the black did most of the grunt work.

In our case, the current American way of doing things is socialism for big business & the underclass, and free markets for everyone else (i.e. poh suckas like us).

1) A subsidy is a subsidy, no matter who it goes to, and subsidies are essentially socialist.

2) The more public money they take, the less private they become.

Then Obama’s socialism is nothing new, & we come back to the essential correctness of Mr. Toddard’s observation. The protesters are essentially ignorant & more often than not pawns of the Republican party.

Interesting South African aside, Andrew. I think you’re essentially correct. But the so-free markets (for “everyone else”) are actually far from free.

I spent a number years working as a school teacher in Kerala, India. The coming-together of communist & capitalist tendencies was fascinating & often troubling. Image the two ideologies/systems filtered through orthodox Hinduism, Christianity, & Islam! (There is a small & quite interesting Jewish community in Cochin, but they are very near extinction)

South Africa must have been a rare experience — I for one certainly look forward to hearing more about it from you.

Pardon my typo. I meant “so-called free markets”

Obama’s embracing of Saul Alinsky’s community organizing strategies makes him a crypto-communist in my book. Just like the Bush Family’s ties to extrême droite groups makes them crypto-fascists. The difference? Hardly any at all–extremists on both ends tend to be nearly indistinguishable.

So essentially everyone is subject to pejorative political appellations. Meanwhile I wonder how people would deal with the collapse of the American economy without the government intervention surely he would have been sorely criticised for “allowing” that to happen by both right and left. As for the socialist approach to healthcare well we see where the free market approach has gotten us. Just curious how does an elected official lead without espousing ideas that they think will help move the country forward?

“Then Obama’s socialism is nothing new”

Yes, and no. Agriculture in the United States (to give but one example) has been socialist for decades now, favouring large-scale giant agri-businesses at the expense of smaller, independent family farms. This is to be regretted, but where Obama is new is that he is trying to expand socialism into other aspects of society and that it why he is dangerous. (University education is a similar realm; a “private” university like Notre Dame can basically say “F.U.” to its alumni, who donate millions upon millions of dollars to their alma mater, because it receives so much more money from the federal government in grants).

“The protesters are essentially ignorant & more often than not pawns of the Republican party.”

Perhaps, but despite their ignorance they are being used to a good end in this case; i.e. opposing socialism (until a Republican is elected and they can be enlisted to support it). It’d be great if they’d be better-informed, but we have to be realistic and can only play the cards we’ve been dealt.

“As for the socialist approach to healthcare well we see where the free market approach has gotten us.”

The “health care crisis” in this country is, like just about everything else in this country, grossly exaggerated towards political ends. (For example, pundits talk about the high numbers of uninsured rather than attempting to decipher the number of people actually denied life-saving health procedures, which is no doubt much lower; one can lack insurance and still get care).

If the supporters of socialist health care put just one-tenth of the effort they put in trying to get government to take over medicine into actually providing health care to those without insurance, there wouldn’t be a problem.

It’s the typical conundrum of American liberalism: instead of going out and trying to solve a problem themselves, they spend millions upon millions of their dollars and waste years of time in trying to convince everyone that the government should solve the problem by spending billions of taxpayer dollars. The result is everyone is poorer and the problem generally remains unsolved.

In terms of health care, it’s beside the point anyhow. While many of the pawns in this equation (i.e. most Democratic voters) favour socialist medicine out of the erroneous belief that it is a good and beneficial thing, the real proponents of the socialization of medicine see it as just one more step along the road to Utopia, which is to say a non-free, government-run society.

This is why I rarely find it worthwhile disputing with proponents of socialist health care: they are so clueless as to the bigger picture and so unaware of how the single factor of “universal health care” figures into the larger scheme of things that one’s arguments are ineffective. The “boomer” generation is so completely formed by television (and especially by television news) that it is very difficult to get them to actually think for themselves.

At the end of the day, all these efforts (socializing health care, public funding of private banks and private universities, etc., etc.) have but one aim: to move closer and closer to a society in which families and individuals stand completely naked and defenseless before the powerful State, and utterly dependent upon it for survival.

Those who want to defend the independence and freedom of families and of people must oppose this evil tendency whenever and wherever we can.

Sadly, we have long been a society where families & individuals stand completely naked before a predatory economic system (supported by the State) & utterly dependent upon it for survival.

As for the “healthcare crisis”, I do not trust pundits of any cloth, nor do I trust in government or privately (read corporate) generated numbers.

My own experience is that many people I know have had their life savings ravaged by medical bills, including some family members. I also know people who have had legitimate claims denied by insurance companies.

I also believe it is evil to profit from disease & the suffering of others.

*

Your response to “Mom’s” questioning of the current “free market approach” suggests you are satisfied with our current healthcare system?

How do you feel about the healthcare system in the U.K. & in South Africa?

When you were overseas what was your opinion of other healthcare systems?

“Your response … suggests you are satisfied with our current healthcare system?”

No, merely that I am not satisfied that 1) the crisis is as bad as the pundits say, and 2) the solutions they offer are the ones which will be appropriate, good, and effective.

“How do you feel about the healthcare system in the U.K. & in South Africa?” / “When you were overseas what was your opinion of other healthcare systems?”

South Africa’s health system is pretty poor, especially the public health system. The government refuses to hire perfectly qualified professionals who want to work in South Africa merely because of the colour of their skin, which exacerbates the shortage of health professionals in the country while simultaneously encouraging South African doctors & nurses of White/Coloured/Indian/Asian descent to take their skills to the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand where their skills will be better remunerated and appreciated.

The health system in the U.K. is a shambles in some ways and is definitely a very good model of what to avoid when setting up a public health care system. The basic standard is fairly low, which medical professionals from other European countries with their own state-funded public health systems will testify to if they have experience of the UK’s NHS.

(Argentina’s system, meanwhile, I have absolutely no experience of).

Being young (& healthy, I hope), perhaps you didn’t require any health care when you lived overseas? If you did, was it your personal experience that medical professionals in the U.K. & South Africa were of a low standard? Or by “low standard” are you refering mainly to infrastructure (ie: technology/equipment, medical supplies, drugs, hospital buildings, etc.)& not people?

My experience in India was that the medical professionals were of at least as high a standard as in the U.S. The hospital infrastructure, however, was often woeful — especially when compared to that of the U.S. & Europe.

Hospitals & clinics in that populous country were overwhelmed with patients. Given the work load & poor materials that medical professionals had to work with, they do an extraordinary job. And no one expects to get rich from practising medicine, or as one Indian doctor I knew always said “the healing arts.”

*

After my father-in-law lost his job he was too poor to afford standard health insurance, yet considered too rich for Medicaid. At some point he sold his small house in order to pay for insurance (which never really helped him much) & the medical bills that had mounted over the years for both himself & his late wife. We tried to help as best we could. He spent his last days pleading with the insurance company.

Perhaps his story is unusual, I don’t know. But if it is not, then surely some kind of reform is necessary.

(By the way, I had minor surgery a couple of years ago, & even though I have what is considered an excellent health insurance policy, I had to spend about 5 years worth of savings. I can’t imagine what I would have had to spend had it been major surgery.)

*

What kind of reform(s) do you think would be “appropriate, good, and effective”? Especially from a Christian perspective.

Working for the past 20 years within our present health care system and being a consumer I would say that the situation is not at all blown out of proportion. It is a system that for everyone is broken broken broken and someone, government or some other entity needs to come up with some ideas that can address they myriad of things wrong with it. I don’t propose to know what the answer is but the situation is definitely NOT “grossly overstated”. Never mind S. Africa people get substandard care here too, which taxpayers are already paying for and our economy pays for. One of the most common reasons for bankruptcy is paying for medical expenses.

“government or some other entity needs to come up with some ideas that can address they myriad of things wrong with it”

But since all the plans that government have come up with are plans thatll make the problem worse and more expensive, I think we’ve got to be realistic and oppose them.

Other entities have proposed useful things like reducing government interference in healthcare to reduce costs. Look at lasik eye surgery, gets cheaper and cheaper every year because there’s no government subsidy or involvement. The current system doesn’t work, so lets exchange it for a more free, more competitive system rather than a less free, non-competitive system.

People have been proposing this for years but because its considered heresy in Washington and New York so anyone who proposes it is ignored. The solutions are there but they will NEVER be used, because the American political establishment forbids it.

India has a “more free, more competitive system” where in fact multiple medical approaches exist, ranging from allopathy (the standard Western approach), to homeopathy, to native (ayurveda). Medical insurance is rare. In most cases one does not need a doctor’s prescription to buy most medications at a pharmacy. And doctors are sometimes flexible about their fees, as are hospitals.

On the other hand, there is little or no recourse should one fall victim to medical malpractice. And drug manufacture is lightly regulated, if at all, so that many drugs are are adulterated or expired. And supply is sporadic.

*

Back to the subject of the pictures of protesters Andrew posted, I’m struck at the undercurrent of hypocrisy among these Republicans-in-Libertarian-clothing.
Where were they when Bush was expanding presidential power & creating the rather Teutonic sounding Department of Homeland Security?

Consider as well those arrested at anti-Iraq war rallies for carrying anti-Bush signs, while the anti-Obama protesters (many of whom accused the anti-Bush protesters of treason) are allowed to show up at anti-Obama rallies carrying guns.

It’s a strange time we live in.

Why “Trotskyite”? I don’t get it.

A good friend of mine attended the 9/12 DC protests, and I think there are too many negatives being trown at these folks. Almost all of the protestors believe that the health care “reforms” being proposed by liberals will destroy health care standards in this country. I am absolutely certain they are correct. If these same people were not moved to charge down to DC to protest the Patriot Act or the Iraq war, that does not make them a bunch a sheep.
KD (or I guess I should say kd), you make interesting points, but I, for one, have a hard time paying attention to what you are saying when you write things such as “those arrested at anti-Iraq war rallies for carrying anti-Bush signs….” What you describe has never occurred in the real world. There were violent protests in Manhattan during the 2004 Republican Convention, and many protestors got charges thrown out since the City chose not to keep litigating. But the idea that people were arrested for carrying anti-Bush signs is nonsense.

Steve,

I happen to personally know several persons who were arrested for carrying anti-war & anti-Bush signs in 2003. Please adhere to facts.

Other than paranoid fantasies about death panels (which, one could argue, already “exist” in the form of insurance policy reviews), euthanasia, the outlawing private insurance, Soviet-style rationing, or the end of Medicare (government-run healthcare), in what way will “liberal” healthcare reform “destroy healthcare standards in this country” (by the way, the American healthcare system is ranked number 37, I understand, by the World Health Organization)?

My personal experience is that America’s healthcare system is a cause for both pride & shame. We have the best emergency response system in the world, thanks a combination of BOTH public & private funding, as well as other factors such as a highly developed communications system & excellent streets, roads, & highways. How will healthcare reform “destroy” that? Those who can access America’s healthcare system through personal wealth or a good insurance policy, do indeed get some the most advanced healthcare in the world. Nevertheless, the monetary cost of healthcare in the U.S. ranks among the highest in the world. BOTH government & private healthcare services suffer from excessive administrative expenses, waste, & fraud. And the fact remains a huge number of Americans simply cannot afford general healthcare, much less serious treatment or even brief hospitalization. Something is amiss, can we at least agree on that?

To argue (as do many of these protestors) that having a government bureaucrat “stand between us & our doctors” is somehow essentially worse than having an insurance company exective determine what conditions & treatment will be covered based on his company’s profit/loss statement, is frankly disingenuous.

But to argue against excessive administrative costs, rising overhead, waste, & fraud — whether in government OR the private sector — THAT would be productive.

My grandparents did not fear financial ruin because of medical bills. But today my mother does.

I wonder how many people in those pictures are one minimum wage paycheck or one government aid check away from bankruptcy?

They need SOME kind of healthcare reform, & soon. Do you suggest they simply wait until a Republican occupies the White House so that he (or she) will come forth with the reforms that will be (in Andrew’s words) “appropriate, good, and effective”?

kd,
On being arrested for protesting Bush, if you have one or more links to news coverage of the demonstartion(s) where your friends were arrested, I would be interested in reading about what happened. I note that you refer to arrests, not convictions, but even an arrest is an injustice if all your freinds did was hold a sign (as distinguished from holding a sign while blocking traffic or doing so while ignoring police demands as to a route for a protest march, etc.)
The fact that Republican politicians are not great folks does not make Democratic politicians good people to decide what should happen to my health care. On the governmental take over of health care, just two examples from the thousands that you can read about at the Wall Street Journal, National Review, etc:
(1) One of the House health care bills would empower every lawyer in the country to sue any doctor, nurse, etc. for overcharging–without the lawyer needing to recruit a client. Make every lawyer a federally-authorized bounty hunter, with medical professionals as the targets–just the thing to solve the growing problem with shortgages of doctors and nurses.
(2) Look at the 9/18/09 Wall Street Journal editorial on the health care “reform” plan put forth by Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, “The Innovation Tax: How Max Baucus Knifed the Medical Devices Industry.” The Newly announced Baucus health bill has a $40 billion tax against medical device makers. The yearly, targeted tax hit will be more than half these companies’ current R&D budgets. Note, there is no targeted tax against trial lawyers who pull in megamillion malpractice fees–but if you are improving prostetic devices, or have a better idea for a pacemaker–you get gored by the IRS. Please read that WSJ editorial, by all means also read whatever the Obama/Baucus cheerleaders in the mainstream media have to say on the $40 billion tax, and then come back and tell us we should trust the Democrats to make these decisions.

Numerous links to arrests made during anti-war protests in 2003 can be found on the internet, although do not trust either media coverage (including the WSJ, even moreso The National Review) or official police reports.

Yes, the people I knew were not convicted, & it is my understanding that few of the hundreds of protestors arrested around the country were.

In June, 2004, a couple was arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts to a presidential appearance. Charges were later dismissed. There are other incidents.

I’m sorry you’ve misunderstood me. I am not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican. What I am saying is simply this: regardless of politcal partisanship, this country needs some kind of healthcare reform, & soon. Obama’s reforms may not be the best (indeed, they are not), but I agree with him that maintaining the status quo is a disaster.