This is What We Have Come to: Parsing the Word “Socialist.”

Posted by Charles M Cooper on Thursday, October 23, 2008

You know the political season is is in its home stretch when folks are either this desperate to tar their enemies with anything they think might stick—or they figure that they have no credibility left to lose—when you read something like this from Lewis Diuguid, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist:

 

Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black

 

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

 

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

 

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

 

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

 

Shame on McCain and Palin.

 

At the risk of stating the oh-so-obvious, Barack Obama has been black a lot longer than he has been identified as a socialist. In fact, as recently as 10 days ago, he was a democrat, an extreme liberal, inexperienced, naive, rabidly pro-abortion, but not a socialist. He has himself to thank for that label. What makes people say he is a socialist--the reason he comes across as so dangerous to small business and the economy in general--are the things that come out of his mouth, the positions he espouses, his proposed tax and spend plan, and the questionable company he keeps. Of course, what brought it to a head was the response he gave to the much maligned and abused Joe the Plumber, who sought to challenge That One (or, The One, if you prefer), over the problems his tax plan would pose to Joe's plans for future business ownership. I am sure you remember the response. Obama told him that he (Obama) was going to tax Joe to “spread the wealth around.”

 

Regardless of what J. Edgar Hoover said, white or black, that is an admission of socialist thought. It will hurt US businesses, especially small businesses, it will ruin our chances to regain prosperity and it will limit the opportunities of average Americans to realize the American Dream. The Chinese have realized the drawbacks of socialism, the Russians and their satellites have as well. Now, if we could only convince Obama, Pelosi, Ried and their media protectors and apologists like Diuguid, MSNBC and The New York Times, we might get somewhere.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to our free newsletter to receive future articles and information delivered directly to your email inbox.

Charles M Cooper

Charles Cooper is the Web Editor for America’s Best Companies. He came to ABC with nearly twenty years of business and technology writing and editorial experience. In addition to ABC, Charles has been tapped to be a freelance business writer with the upcoming American edition of The China Daily, has served as a writer for HowStuffWorks.com and LovetoKnow.com and as senior editor for Gear Technology magazine. Contact Charles.

Tags: small business, obama, spread the wealth, communism, fair share, taxes

Print this Article Print Email this Article Email Print this Article Comments
 
RSS RSS Feed Stumble Stumble del.icio.us del.icio.us Reddit Reddit Digg Digg Tip'd Yahoo! Buzz

Related Articles

Add a Comment


Name Email Address
Website

Identify yourself Required, never displayed Optional
 
 


 
Verify You're Human
 


Pitney Bowes 468

Reader Comments


Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 6:07 PM
prochoice says:

pro choice does not equal pro abortion.

Friday, October 24, 2008 at 7:21 AM
Local Search Engine says:

This blog is really nice and informative. We are pleased to know this blog is really helping people. Its our pleasure to post comment on this useful blog created by webmaster.

Friday, October 24, 2008 at 7:49 AM
Life says:

No. pro choice just means you'll allow others to kill their child. Way to stand up for that unborn baby, prochoice!

Friday, October 24, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Ben says:

It is not your kid, why do you care? Better question: Why does the government get to make decisions about the mothers body?

And yes, Obama is a socialist. We seem to have forgotten that socialism has failed nearly every time it has been tried. He is just like every other politician all he wants is more power. He has no interest in actually helping any one.

Friday, October 24, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Vanessa says:

Exactly. I would never have an abortion but who am I to tell someone else that they can't?

Friday, October 24, 2008 at 5:48 PM
elfo says:

And I thought "spread the wealth around" was a way of describing the taxation system. It revealing "socialist thought" is stretching it.

Besides, Socialism does not have to come in the form of Soviet authoritarianism or the weird Chinese model of semi-capitalist oppression: look at modern (mostly) social democratic nations like Sweden and Norway.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say a bit of socialist democracy is just what the US needs. It doesn't mean going full-scale communist dictatorship, nor does it necessarily need to hurt small business: most social democratic parties today try to encourage small business growth and entrepreneurs while still keeping taxation high - again, look at (amongst others) Sweden and Norway.

Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 12:22 AM
dan says:

You are right that people really need to read all points of view and be analytical, not knee jerk. Joe the Plumber as an example would not be able to afford the business he wants to have, especially with the business sense he is displaying - not being licensed and not paying his taxes.

The current administration has favored corporations over small businesses, especially any that want to go into the new "green" industries. They are very under-supported by the government.

Socialist thought is not 'spreading the wealth around" -- many other economic models espouse that idea. Many American economists support building a middle class in Latin America as against having a small super rich class. Taxation also spreads the wealth around, and preventive healthcare saves hugely for employers and the society as a whole because it prevents the economic problems of a sick populace which becomes more liable to epidemics, absenteeism, job turnover costs etc.

The Europeans will not succumb to such naive labels as "socialism" without asking what is meant by that. They don't understand why socialism is such a bogey word in America while fascism is not even used, in the mainstream to denigrate others, but the Europeans know about both of those, and still have small businesses and capitalism.

Americans need to read more about what is happening in China. Under uncontrolled capitalism they have huge pollution, angry citizens who feel their government is allowing too much corruption, and toxic products. China is not a good model to follow.

I think that small businesses will get loans and some help under Obama. McCain has voted all along with big business at the expense of small business.

Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 4:27 PM
SmBizOwner says:

I am a small business owner (10 employees, 50/50 PT/FT, gross <$250K/yr), who is registered non-partisan, and I have looked at both major party's platforms and activity. By far and away, Obama/Biden will be better for my business, me and my employees - IFF they follow through AND Congress gets its poop together. In any case, I'm convinced that Obama/Biden provides the best risk/reward ratio.

As for "spreading the wealth", haven't we been doing that since at least the creation of the IRS? Calling Obama a socialist, under these circumstances, inevitably leads to calling our system a socialist one. Both sides are adept at name-calling, and it pisses me off.

And on that note, I'm all for socialized medicine. I cannot afford health insurance for my business, and my spouse essentially cannot get it individually (pre-existing conditions). There are tremendous benefits to proper health care for everyone, and there are many systems we can look at to avoid potential problems. If it doesn't work, we can always (re-)privatize it later.


Join Free Today

Email:    Password: | Register | Help