Constant Conservative

Steve Chapman says we’re focusing on the the wrong thing:

Accusing Obama of socialism is unwise for three reasons: 1) It’s not true, and 2) it makes the accuser sound like an idiot, and 3) it distracts from Obama’s true inclinations, which are worrisome enough.

These days, no one believes in socialism — defined by the late, left-wing economist Robert Heilbroner as “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” A socialist wouldn’t favor government aid to the automakers or the banks. He’d propose that the government take them over and run them for the benefit of society. But you haven’t heard Obama or anyone else suggest that.

[...]

Obama also seems to regard the nation’s productive sector as a laboratory for well-intentioned policymakers. In his “60 Minutes” interview, he praised Franklin Roosevelt for his “willingness to try things. And experiment in order to get people working again.” What he overlooks is that experimentation creates uncertainty, and uncertainty discourages businesses from doing what they are supposed to do.

Actually, some people are suggesting just that. (Oh and does anyone remember Maxine Water’s statement on the oil industry?) I agree with Mr. Chapman that Obama may not technically be qualified as a socialist, based on the definition used in the above quote. However, socialism is much more than a centrally-driven economy. It becomes, effectively, government control of everything (including education, healthcare, information, etc).  Perhaps a more useful working definition of socialism here in the United States is “Now don’t you worry, Uncle Sam knows best.”

Obama’s on-the-record statement about experimentation is, as Mr. Chapman states, a serious issue. My contention is that this desire to have the government meddle with/control things is indeed an outworking of socialist thinking.