It is a tactical mistake for libertarians and conservatives to label Obama a socialist. For what will happen, has happened: liberals will revert to a strict definition and point out that Obama is not a socialist by this definition. Robert Heilbroner defines socialism in terms of "a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production." To my knowledge, Obama has never advocated such a thing. So when the libertarian or conservative accuses Obama of socialism he lets himself in for a fruitless and wholly unnecessary verbal dispute from which he will emerge the loser.
It is enough to point out that the policies of Obama and the Democrat Party lead us toward bigger government and away from self-reliance, individual responsibility, and individual liberty.
It is even worse to label him a 'communist.' Every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist. If our president is not a socialist, then a fortiori he is not a communist. It is intellectually irresponsible to take a word that has a definite meaning and turn it into a semantic bludgeon. That's the sort of thing we expect from leftists, as witness their favorite 'F' word, 'fascist,' a word they apply as indiscriminately as 'racist.'
"But haven't you yourself said, more than once, that politics is war conducted by other means?" Yes, I have said it, and more than once. In the end that's what politics is. I call it the Converse Clausewitz Principle. But we are not quite at the end. Before we get there we should exhaust the possibilities of civil and reasonable debate.
"But what if the tactic of labeling Obama a socialist or even a communist would keep him from a second term. Wouldn't that inaccurate labeling then be justified?" That's a very tough question. An affirmative answer would seem to commit one to the principle that the end justifies the means -- in which case we are no better than liberals/leftists. On the other hand, how can one play fair with those who will do anything to win?
Recent Comments