creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop
24 May 2012
Bain And Our Screwed-Up Culture

We recently saluted Leslie Sabo for giving his life to save fellow soldiers in Vietnam 40 years ago. Injured … Read More.

22 May 2012
The United States of Gambling

A surprising fact: Gamblers spent more last year at commercial casinos in Indiana than they did at non-Indian … Read More.

17 May 2012
Grief Is Not a Mental Illness

We moderns seem determined to suppress all unhappiness with one exception: grief. The intense sadness … Read More.

Socialism for Any Occasion

Share Comment

Many conservatives think they've found a winner in tarring President Obama and his allies as "socialists." Earnest attempts to explain why "it isn't so" are futile, as is asking people what the heck they mean when they say raising taxes is "socialism."

In a heroic effort to force a definition into the exchange, Princeton economist Alan Blinder reasons: "Socialism means public ownership and control of business, right? So which industries does the president propose to nationalize?"

None that anyone has noticed. Obama's economic team won't even nationalize the broken banks. But that doesn't matter. The S-word can signify anything conservatives want it to.

Real-life socialists scoff at this whole back-and-forth. Obama is "a hedge-fund Democrat," Billy Wharton, editor of Socialist magazine, writes in The Washington Post. "Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal."

Grasping both the gut-level response to the S-word and the meaninglessness of it, urbane conservatives try to have it both ways. In a kind of bait-and-switch, The National Review plasters "Our Socialist Future" on the cover, but the story steers clear of the S-word. It's used only once — in a misleading reference to "socialized health care."

No fool he, author Mark Steyn replaces "socialist" as everything red-blooded Americans scorn with "European." Obama's Washington, he says, is offering "Euro-sized government with Euro-sized economic intervention, Euro-sized social programs and Euro-sized regulation."

But ... but even the 27 countries within the European Union differ a lot on the size and role of their governments. And if Europe is so hot to regulate, how come it let its 12 biggest banks go leveraged 35 to one? The biggest American banks were leveraged less than 20 to one; they were a model of restraint by comparison.

The label "socialized medicine" gets glued onto any national health plan.

In a true socialized system, all the doctors work for the government. That's the case in only a few countries.

The more accurate term is "socialized insurance": The government picks up the bills but doctors work for themselves. By the way, socialized insurance has already established a beachhead on our shores. Ever hear of Medicare? And the emerging Obama health care plan, with its heavy reliance on private insurers, happens to be less socialistic than Medicare.

Now, how many of our Republican lawmakers want to dismantle Medicare? Let's see a show of hands.

Details, details. Most European health-care systems are multi-payer. They allow both government and private coverage. Some have very strong free-market components.

Steyn frets that a stronger social safety net would strangle "the American virtues of self-reliance, entrepreneurial energy and the can-do spirit." Workers need the whip of insecurity to go forth and conquer whatever.

There are nightmare visions of a Frenchified push for "legislated sloth" — that is, a codified right to time off. Steyn quotes the following passage in the proposed European Constitution: "Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave."

Where do we sign? — I mean, what gutless little locavores those Europeans must be! Real Americans work three jobs with no health care, no vacation and no retirement benefits. They bow before the executive who nabs a quick fortune through a short-term bonus scheme, preferably completed before the taxpayer bailout. Of course, he must be lightly taxed.

As Joe the Plumber put it, "Why should they (millionaires) be penalized for being successful?"

Regulations? Progressive taxation? Secure health care? Socialism on the march! None of that Euro-puff stuff for the Joes who detest the S-word, however defined.

To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

??

??

??

??


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Since when does a president demand for someone to leave their job? GM's CEO was pretty much forced out of office by our president -- aren't there other things more important to accomplish in this economic situation than to point fingers at one person? To me, that just sounds like downright dictatorship. "You do this NOW!" Where has our original Constitution gone? Where has liberty, freedom, and the right to be gone?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Allison R.
Wed Apr 1, 2009 9:35 AM
One comment? One lousy comment!! Seems to say a lot about her readership. Regardless, I'm pretty certain that it was "Newsweek" magazine whose cover headline pronounced that "WE ARE ALL SOCILAISTS NOW" back in early Feb. or late Jan.
But in reality, Ms Harrop is correct in pointing out that we are not approaching socialism as it is classically defined, i.e. the dissolution of private property. But, at the same time, she could have demonstrated how erudite she is by informing us that what we are approaching is not socialism but fascism, super dirty word that won't be liked by her or her peers on the left; but if she doean't like fascism she could give statism a try. Whether it is socialism, fascism, or statism, we are going toward too much government control, too much public debt, too much taxation.
Comment: #2
Posted by: John Warren
Wed Apr 1, 2009 4:04 PM
How could Ms. Harrop have come up with the premise behind her article? Perhaps the article by Alan Blinder, which appeared the previous week in the Wall Street Journal, provided her with some inspiration. At the very least, Mr. Blinder, a Princeton economist, as we are told, is quoted by Ms. Harrop as providing a conveniently narrow definition of socialism. I am just a lawyer, and a Texas lawyer at that, so I lclearly lack the insight of someone as worldly and polished as a professional journalist, but I find her argument style to be eerily similar to the sophmoric approach of the president: Define the problem incorrectly, and provide a self-serving answer. Despite Mr. Blinder's Ivy League pedigree, he is wrong and so is Ms. Harrop. Ms. Harrop needed to conduct a little more research on the subject. It is incontravertable that Obama is a socialist. But why so sensitive? Ms. Harrop should embrace her socialist sympathies. Afterall, in the myopic and provencial world of New York academia and media, socialism is cool. For me, I don't want a cool president. Please, if you want to be a socialist, be a socialist in New York, or California, etc - but do not affect the rest of us with your dim view of humanity. WE THE PEOPLE are fed up.
Comment: #3
Posted by: cswilson
Thu Apr 2, 2009 4:20 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Froma Harrop
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Tom Rosshirt
Tom RosshirtUpdated 26 May 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 25 May 2012

31 Mar 2011 Foggy Thinking in the Sunshine State

11 Nov 2010 Cheese Subsidies Are Full of Holes

11 Mar 2008 The Specter of McCain Democrats