Socialist or Fascist
By Thomas Sowell
6/12/2012
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.
The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.
One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.
What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
Hitler hijacked a socialist party because it sounded good to a lot of people. When it suited him, he was "socialist", and things looked and sounded pretty rosy at first, though there were some troubling events which could be explained away by "national security" rhetoric. (sound familiar?) He then proceeded to become a right wing dictator, and the socialism went out the window. Only an idiot can think that Nazism actually IS socialism, regardless of its stupid name. Claiming Obama is a nazi just because he is arguably a socialist is just plain stupid, a straw man arguement which does a disfavor to anybody who has ever seen the Nazi's in action and fought against that particular evil.
ReplyDeleteI note that fewer and fewer of those fighters are around these days to speak about their experiences, and it leaves the field open to partisan dingbats on the right who paddle frantically away from historical reality in order to distance themselves from the taint of the bundtwehr.
Obamacare can not be compared to Eugenics experiments and death camps. Sorry.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841
Like I said...it sounds good at first. Think the guys in the death camps cared about an anti smoking campaign? Or jobs? Or all the other things that the nazis claimed were "good things". That was a triumph of B.S. propaganda.
Its a shame really. Nazism sounds so good. If it was real, it would have taken over the world.
Its too bad Mr. Sowell must use such a weak and easily defeated straw man to bolster his argument, because withall, it is pretty good all on its own. I found myself agreeing with most of what he was saying (as I agree with most of what SlyFox says) however, I can guarantee that he will not win any debates with such blatant and stupid rhetoric. The right got "saddled with those pariahs" because they deserved it, not because it was imposed upon them. Sorry Mr. Sowell...that dog won't hunt. And the people who read Sly Fox's blog are smart enough to know that.