Well, it depends what you mean by "socialist."
If you make a perfect equation between socialism and the totalitarian communism of the 20th Century Soviet Union, well then, no, Obama's not a socialist. But virtually no one defines socialism as that kind of perfect equation. No one except Milos Forman, perhaps, in his recent essay at the New York Times, "
Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close.
Read it at the link. The analysis is deeply flawed but understandably so, given that Forman lived through real-life communism in Czechoslovakia from his birth in 1932 until 1968.
That said, he's still wrong about Obama's socialism. See the response to Forman from Ron Radosh, "Is Obama a Socialist? An Answer to Milos Forman." Radosh is an ex-American communist and the author of the essential memoir of the movement, Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left
Here's a passage from the piece, published at PJ Media:
Forman accuses conservatives — he names Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh — of calling Obama a socialist. He writes:
They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.
In making that argument, Forman reveals his own confusion, and in effect says that to say Obama is a socialist is to say he is a Marxist-Leninist totalitarian. Of course Obama is NOT a communist. He is an elected leader of a politically democratic republic. He is constrained in policies he would like to implement by a Congress and a vigorous Republican opposition. Nevertheless, a strong case has been made — here at PJM and in other conservative journals of opinion and in various serious books — that Barack Obama favors and pursues policies that are indeed the equivalent of redistributionist socialist measures favored today, for example, by François Hollande and his new government in France.
To make this case hardly “cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism,” as Forman claims. The problem is that the social-democratic governments in Europe that Forman claims only favor “government provision of social insurance and health care” have their own serious problems. Most conservatives favor a social safety net, adequate health care, and other common-sense measures. What they do oppose is the limitless welfare state that seemingly never ends in its quest to further extend its grasp, in a manner that produces a whole new set of problems and brings modern economies to a grinding halt.
And more:
America’s preeminent socialist leader in the 1980s was the late Michael Harrington, who carried on as the spokesman for social democracy, a post he inherited from his predecessors, Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas. Harrington was well-aware that the path to socialism, in which he ardently believed, was through continued extension of the American welfare state. He became a vigorous supporter of a meaningless bill passed by Congress in 1978 called the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, which stated that it was the policy of the United States to strive to attain a full employment economy.
Testifying before Congress in defense of the act, the dying Senator Humphrey asked Harrington: “Is my bill socialism?” The socialist leader responded, “It isn’t half that good.” His point was that socialism needed liberalism as a focal point from which to grow. As Harrington argued at the time, by laying out the principle that it was the duty of the state to create full employment, socialists could build upon that to move liberal supporters to advocate more extensive social-democratic programs that would challenge the hegemony of capitalist social relations, making it easier to advance real socialist measures at a future moment.
What Forman ignores, and does not really address, is that Barack Obama came into politics from the precincts of the Harringtonian left wing. He was a member in Chicago of the socialist New Party, which grew out of the activism of the Democratic Socialists of America, which Harrington led. His past, ignored but addressed in particular by Stanley Kurtz and now by Paul Kengor, was that of the sectarian left wing of the 1970s and ’80s.
Forman might not see “much of a socialist in Mr. Obama,” but he also writes that he does not see “signs of that system in this great nation.” That is because Mr. Forman is confusing Stalinism with social democracy. With that as his standard, he can easily ignore all signs of socialist policies and programs favored by Barack Obama. Like the Marxists, Obama said four years ago that we were on the verge of a “fundamental transformation” of the United States. What did he mean by that, if not his hope that the United States would soon become a nation more similar to the social-democratic welfare states of Europe?
One of the things that never ceases to amaze me is how the left's Democrat-Media-Complex has managed to sustain the lie that Obama's just a regular old "liberal Democrat." It's truly an amazing thing, three and a half years into this administration, that conservatives are still heckled and rebuked as conspiracy-mongers for mentioning the fact of Obama's socialism. In any case, scrolling through the archives I found this old piece from Jawa Report, "
Question: Does Barack Obama Have Any Friends Who AREN'T Communists?":
The news of Barack Obama's close relationship with Frank Marshall Davis has been around before, but it's important....
Aren't we seeing a pattern here? One interaction with one old communist isn't particularly troubling. A handful of sporadic interactions with a handful of radical left-wingers may not be particularly troubling. But a lifelong pattern of extended associations and alliances with scores of fringe, America-hating radicals is very, very troubling indeed.
Just to be clear:
It's not just that Barack Obama's father was a Marxist economist or that his mother Stanley came from radical far-left roots.
It's not just that Obama's childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a famous communist poet.
It's not just that Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, counselor and spiritual mentor of 20 years is a racist, America-hating radical.
It's not just that Michael Phleger, Obama's other spiritual mentor is every bit as extreme as Wright.
It's not just that his wife Michelle has never been really that proud of America, or that she thinks this country is "mean".
It's not just that Obama refused to wear a flag, or that he refused to salute it during the national anthem.
It's not just that Obama's political and financial benefactor William Ayers is an unrepentant radical socialist terrorist.
It's not just that Bernadine Dohrn regrets that she didn't kill more people back in the 1960s.
It's not just that Alice Palmer, Obama's political mentor in Chicago, was a communist propagandist.
It's not just that Obama was a member of the radical socialist New Party or that he ran as a candidate for public office under their far-left platform.
It's not just that Obama was an agitator, trainer and attorney for the corrupt and radical-left ACORN.
None of these facts, by itself, tells you that much about Barack Obama. A reasonable person should, however, be able to look at this motley crew of left-wing communists and America-haters, realize that Barack Obama's rolodex is a veritable Who's Who of American Socialism, be very, very disturbed by that fact and ask some very probing questions about WHO Barack Obama is, WHAT he believes, and WHY this gang of radical America-haters considers Barack Obama such a good friend.
Check
the post for all the links documenting those friendships.
And that was before Obama took office. Monica Crowley provides an excellent rundown of the socialist czars that Obama appointed to his administration, at
FrontPage Magazine:
Obama doesn’t run around wearing a Carrie Bradshaw-esque nameplate necklace that says, “Socialist.” But his policies, actions, words, background, and associations speak louder than any ID necklace ever could. As a technical matter, economic fascism (government control of the means of production without ownership) more accurately describes what Obama is carrying out than socialism (government ownership of those means of production), but “fascism” and “socialism” are highly charged words—and arguments over the labels often obfuscate the reality of the policies. Obama has engaged in extreme government-directed redistributionism to undermine the free market, generate widespread dependency, and further centralize state power.
In the end, the term matters less than his policies and their effects. This is a man who spent his formative years learning at the knees of assorted communists, from his mother and father to Frank Marshall Davis to the Marxist professors and sundry socialists he admitted he sought out while in school to the self-avowed Communists (Van Jones, “green jobs” czar), Mao admirers (Anita Dunn, communications director) and radical redistributionists (Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar) he appointed as president. He spent a good deal of time mastering the art of Saul Alinsky’s tactics for advancing the socialist revolution. In 2007, he said of his years learning Alinsky’s methods, “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.” Indeed.
Right.
Notice how Crowley mentions "economic fascism" as a clarifying concept. Because as long as the U.S. maintains a relatively free market with private ownership, the U.S. can't be described as socialist. But that's a practical matter. If Obama could he'd bankrupt America's corporate sector and have the state take over. He may yet achieve that end in the healthcare sector with ObamaCare, and it's been but for the awesome resilience of the American economy and people that we've resisted the administration's socialist encroachments on the energy sector. That's why Crowley and others warn that Obama simply can't get a second term, lest he win the chance to complete the destruction he's already started.
In any case, there's still some time to continue hammering the real truth before the election. Toward that end, see Nice Deb, "
The Vetting: Paul Kengor on Obama’s Communist Mentor, Frank Marshall Davis," and Dan Riehl, "
New Book Claims Obama Mentored By Perverted, Drug Using Communist Frank Marshall Davis."
And at the New York Times, "A Yahoo Search Calls Up a Chief From Google" (via Memeorandum):
