Barack Obama, John McCain, politics, United States

The south, the stupid, and the socialists

I spent much of last week away from a computer and the intertubes, and I have to make a comment about the debate Thursday night. It showed ever more clearly that John McCain is not fit to lead a Scout troop let alone a nation. His anger and disrespect was evident in the split screen just about every time Obama spoke, and his new meme, Joe the Plumber, is irritating and disrespectful pandering. If I was an American voter, I would cringe at how obviously stupid John McCain thought I was.

However, what really got me, what irks me to my core, is the attack on Obama’s targetted tax increases as “socialism” and that the redistribution of wealth is somehow not merely wrong, but anti-American (whatever that means), and somehow different from what happens now. As if the government bailout of banks, tax supports to the auto industry, tax breaks to oil companies, and support for pharmaceutical companies to name a few are examples of anything but re-distribution. It’s merely the target of the benevolence that differs – socialism for the rich, laissez-faire fuck you to the rest.

Just to set this meme aside, socialism is not evil, it is an economic theory. Specifically, it is an economic theory that deserves consideration if societal and economic stability is the goal of a government. Elements of socialism is present in most western systems in some form or other; incremental tax regimes, single-payer health care, etc. The principle argument against “socialism” (say it with a sneer, please) in the Republican context appears to be that it represents unwanted rules superimposed upon markets and economies. To look at McCain’s voting record regarding regulation issues, it’s apparent that the imposition of just about any rules on the market is anathema to him and more importantly to his backers/ supporters/ financiers, so he’s at least being consistent to his record.

However, the economy is not in and of itself a natural creature, obeying immutable laws of nature (Ayn Rand be damned), it is a man-made creation and is highly regulated to protect those involved. All of those involved, even the rich. Laws and regulations are not only present, they are the reason the system works at all. Take away the laws and chaos would reign, and those with money would quickly take it elsewhere to do their business.

The central questions therefore, are not whether the government should apply controls to the economy, they are which controls to apply, and what is the goal of the control? In most cases, the stated goal of a democratic government has to be to provide benefit to the multitude, via jobs, services, and security, otherwise they are unlikely to win office. In short, stability. Often, the stated goal in the press conference is not exactly (to put it mildly) the real goal of a specific policy. In the eighties, the US government played with “trickle down”, promising that stimulating the rich with preferential tax cuts, which would then percolate through the economy, resulting in the production of jobs for the middle class and other lessers. It didn’t work then, and the cuts for the rich in 2003 have repeated the experiment with the same or poorer results.

What Barack Obama plans is to increase taxes on those making more than 250K and lowering taxes on those who make below that mark. The plan can be described as “trickle up”, and it just might work, because unlike tax cuts to the rich which as often as not end up stashed in offshore investments and banks, the middle and lower classes are more likely to spend their money in the communities in which they live and work.

This, naturally, is being promoted as socialism by John McCain because slander is really all that he has left in his bag, and becuase his big business backers are less likely to directly benefit in the next quarter. If he (and they) used their brains for a moment they would probably come to the conclusion that a stable, employed, and purchasing middle class is in the best interests of the wealthy in the long run. But, he can’t do that because A) he didn’t think of it first, and B) socialism is only for the rich.

I’m saddened that “socialism” has been used as an epithet, partly because I’m a socialist, but also because it might well work. It might well work because of the existence of the low information voter. I heard that phrase on the news last night and had to use it. I think it is they that Jon Stewart and John Oliver more pithely referred to as “the stupid” two weeks ago.

It won’t work, right? Tell me it won’t work, please…

Sigh.

-kvd out

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The south, the stupid, and the socialists

  1. Nice post.

    Low information voter hits the nail on the head. It is interesting to hear the vehement opposition to socialism.

    I live in a blue city in a red state. Funny thing is, that the federal tax dollars “taken” from us in the blue city are returned to the towns in the rest of the red state in the form of roads, economic development, and PORK. And yet, it’s these same people who run around hollering about socialism! We can’t have a socialist government! It’s amazing that they simply do not seem to connect that they are decrying something that they have benefitted from for decades.

    A friend of mine pondered a few months back if we should have some kind of test to determine eligibility to vote. Something along the lines of the citizenship test. I’m not sure about whether I agree with that idea, but when you see all this anti-socialism rhetoric you really have to wonder just how many of our problems are the result of having too many stupids here.

    Like

  2. It’s the last vestige of the American perception of Communism being wielded as a weapon in the politics of fear. If people actually had any conception of what small-‘s’ socialism was, as distinct from big-‘S’ Socialist (as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), the trick wouldn’t work anymore.
    Part of what makes the politics of fear so damned effective is the exploitation of the complete lack of curiosity and the spirit of inquiry on the part of a large part of the North American public (I’m not limiting it to just our friends south of the border). Many people are content to have the daily events in the world pile up accidentally like sound-bite silt in the twisty corridors of their underused, over-entertained brains. Whatever facts are available with a bit of searching and diligent inquiry are ignored because they don’t fit with the passive nature of dominant media culture. The ‘factoids’ that most people accumulate are gathered by accident, because they are associated with a pleasing meme, either a catchy theme tune or a pretty, blow-dried empty pile of clothing.
    That’s what frustrates me the most: with a little time and the requisite amount of curiosity (or outrage), anyone can make an informed decision. The problem is that it’s easier to run with the slack-jawed herd.

    Like

  3. Yeah Damn those Socialist and their anti-American ideas of helping society as a whole and providing a care for the less fortunate. If the poor were real americans they wouldn’t be poor.

    [/sarcasm]

    Like

  4. Thank you for the comments, but none of you are allaying my fears that McCain’s tactic will work.

    future: I think that we’ve contemplated some kind of eligibility test for voting here before. There are elements of the idea that I like, but I don’t think I could envision a system that would be viewed as fair for all that would work. I could ask a bunch of questions and just let the people who agree with me vote, but there are those that would find that undemocratic. Meh.

    flash: Three words jumped out of your comment that are bouncing around in my head: slack-jawed herd. I can see it now, bison heading unbidden toward the cliff…

    Like

  5. The righties are the biggest hypocrites going. Capitalism was created via government It is maintained by government. Think only of corporate law, banking law, patents, immanent domain, all the give-aways in real estate, cheap loans, etc. all built capitalism, all through the state. Capitalism is the state socialism of the rich! See http://www.mutualist.org/ for more info on this…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s