A recent Bloomberg National Poll confirmed what was already apparent, that the Tea Party movement has an intense hatred for anything they, or their leaders, deem to be socialist while both appreciating and wanting more government support for programs they like and, of course, not really understanding what the term socialist means. The Tea Party movement has a long, if perhaps not so distinguished pedigree, as fear of socialism has been a tool by powerful economic forces in the US for more than a century used to oppose any policies which might help poor and working people.
For over a hundred years the US has been characterized by a consensus dread of socialism while continuing to enact enormously popular policies that are essentially social democratic in nature. Health care reform is only the most recent example of this type of legislation which also includes Social Security, veterans benefits, Medicare, head start, food stamps which have become particularly popular in this economic downturn, and various other programs, subsidies and tax incentives.
In recent decades socialism, even among many of its advocates, has evolved into social democracy which seeks to take the edges off of the injuries of capitalism without substantially changing the system itself. Most of the industrialized world, including the US, learned in the first half of the last century that the only way to sustain capitalism was to rein it in somehow through providing support and protection for citizens. The social programs that were enacted in the US during the 1930s, as well as those in subsequent decades have always been quite popular. Americans, like Europeans and others, appreciate government safety nets, public projects and other benefits. The primary difference is that in the US, we have become very comfortable with elements of social democracy, although we still have far fewer of these than most wealthy industrialized countries, while we remain virulently opposed to the word "socialism" or even the phrase "social democracy."
Of course, using government resources to levy taxes and provide services including defense, infrastructure, education, economic incentives and programs is not socialism. It is governance. In America socialism is the bogeyman that is wheeled out from time to time to oppose programs that are viewed as too big or too costly, but even that is not entirely accurate. Defense buildups throughout the last decades have infused enormous amounts of money, through lucrative and often wasteful government contracts, into the economy, transferring hard earned tax dollars into profits and jobs, but nobody really calls that socialism
In the US the term socialism is only used to describe some programs. Programs that seek to help big businesses through tax incentives, even waiving taxes entirely, particularly by state and local governments, are referred to as being pro-growth. Programs that help mostly middle class Americans such as veteran's benefits, social security and Medicare are viewed as government service delivery. However, programs that seek to help the poor, such as the health care bill, are referred to as socialist. Thus socialism for the middle class is not questioned; and socialism for the wealthy is often viewed as a necessary economic strategy, while programs to help the poor are presented as dangerously subversive. There is, of course, a high degree of hypocrisy in this view, but it reflects how the right wing has largely succeeded in framing this.
Accordingly, it is much easier to mobilize Americans against the idea of socialism, rather than the policies themselves. It is almost certain that most of the Tea Party demonstrators who are so against health care reform because they view it is socialism would be demonstrating even more passionately and actively if they were told that the government was going to do away with Social Security or Medicare because of a need to balance the budget.
The specific irony about the movement against the health care reform bill is that the passion and red-baiting was directed against a bill that was not only the kind of legislation that should have been popular among moderate, pro-market Republicans, but that similar legislation was supported by pro-market Republicans. It is one thing to call President Obama and the Democratic Party socialists because, you know, they like helping poor people and community organizing. Making these attacks against the likes of Mitt Romney or George H.W. Bush, would be unequivocally nutty, but both of these Republicans supported very similar legislation in the past.
The anger and passion expressed in the Tea Party movement is obviously unfocused and plagued by logical inconsistencies, but it is also genuine and strongly felt. The ease with which this anger was transformed into anti-socialist hatred aimed at a bill that, while certainly objectionable to partisans of the left and the right, has few components that can be described as socialist, reveals both the depth of this anger and the power the word socialist still has to instill fear in many Americans. The passage of the bill, and the likelihood of there being little political fallout for its passage indicates that for many Americans the need for better policy and more government assistance still trumps fear mongering and name calling.
Ari Rabin-Havt: "I'd Even Vote For a Communist Right Now": My Trip to the Showdown in Searchlight
The Tea Party protesters were no longer focusing on issues (such as health care), but rather turning their attention to the election of conservative candidates. The message was clear: they must work to defeat Democrats in November.
The Capitalist Banks, Enron, Health care and so on had the power. It failed from too much power. Now the power is going to the government. It needs to and will or the corporations will become to powerful. Obviously, later on the government will become too powerful and it will have to swing back.
The change is happening, and it is scary for those that have their power invested in corporations at the moment. But sometimes you have to trust a government that you have elected, over a corporation that is legally obligated to it's shareholders, not it's customers.
Any doubts about whether or not the trust fund holds any real assets should be removed by the following statement from the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report:
“Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.â€
I urge everyone who cares about the future of Social Security to please visit my website at www.thebiglie.net to learn more about Social Security and my efforts to expose the scam. Excerpts from my latest book, “THE BIG LIE: How Our Government Hoodwinked the Public, Emptied the S.S. Trust Fund, and caused The Great Economic Collapse,†are posted on the site. Please feel free to download them.
Allen W. Smith, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics Emeritus
Eastern Illinois University
Website: www.thebiglie.net
Americans really need to spend a lot more $ in education as it's obvious we're raising a bunch of idi*ots, who breed more idi*ots. But then again, why should I spend more of my hard-earned money in taxes for people for who obviously can't think for themselves & prefer to follow people like Palin & Glenn Beck & pass the hatred onto their children?
Before it was hi-jacked by neo-cons to supplant the same talking points that the Republicans use, the tea party was originaly very very different. - IT WAS ABOUT BAIL OUTS!!!!!!
George Bush betrayed Republicans when Paulson decided to bail out Goldman Sachs.
The media like this article, is making a fool all out of all of us by saying we're angry because of 'spending' - that's ridiculous.
We, at the lower 80% of the income bracket, favor spending our own taxpayer money on certain social programs like Medi-care and Social Security ..
....but spending on bailing out Goldman Sachs? - NO
Now this health-care fiaco is mandating we bail out the bankrupt HMOs with our taxes!
To say that person is angry about 'spending' his own money on himself is RIDICULOUS!
Of course we like 'spending' money, just as much as the next Democrat but not on STUPID BAIL OUTS
Also, why aren't you protesting the spending on the wars? Those are 2 social programs for the Middle East that I would rather not spend my taxper $ on.
It was a bitter pill to swallow, but the collapse was carefully engineered years before with the removal of DEPRESSION era regulation that the GOP championed in the last year of a very weak and beleaguered lame duck Clinton. It's almost certain that Clinton agreed to sign the bill to be left in peace to ride off into the sunset. Politics! That was the GOP betrayal NOT the GS bailout. The bailout was the cherry on top! You can thank Phil Gramm & Co.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in November 1999, repealing the BHCA and portions of the Glass-Steagall Act
When a bill effectively makes all healthcare insurers (and thus by proxy all healthcare providers) wards of the state, that's proxy socialism. Given the propensity of government to abuse its market position, crowding out the private insurers is likely, thus leading to a full government monopoly over the health sector.
Such an outcome would be socialism for that industry.
By contrast, Social Security is a supplemental program. There are literally trillions of dollars in private retirement accounts today, and most retired Americans rely more on their savings than Social Security. The public market is supplementing the private market in that instance, not replacing it. A fully socialist proposal would outlaw private retirement savings accounts. Fortunately, nothing like that could ever pass, but health care is on a road to a similar condition.
His definition is correct from the standpoint of a political scientist. "general welfare", "the greater good", etc. is a result of interpretations placed on the theory itself; not the basis of the theory in question.
it should highlight the difference between Social - for Society needs and Socialism, which is connected with a property issue - Government 's rights on all the property in the state.
Tea baggers along with idiot palin with very low education, they did not get it or don't want to.
But serious article in public place should make it.
There is NO socialism in the bill ( trust me, who lived under Socialism during 40 years) .
But bill aimed on solving Social Problems.
And Government has Obligation to do so.
Government has this Obligation for the Society and tea baggers also
and obviously you have racial issues. in your world i wouldnt be allowed to say anything to offend you but in the real one you contitute the pay me for nothing ignorance that has become such a thorn in the side.
rich, but the Republican led gov passed it anyway. Anyone that turns on us and tells us we dont
know what is good for us is an enemy to the American way of life. Sound familiar.
But capitalism requires that someone be willing to sell his/her labor to others. You omit capitalism's other function, to create employment for those not willing to create wealth for themselves. They are opposing functions, for the creation of wealth often entails cutting costs wherever possible, and labor costs are almost always one of the first casualties.
I know you did not attack socialism, balmora, but I wanted to say why I see the social safety net for the poor as essential to a true free market economy. Though I do take issue with your statement about the free market's responsibility in making our nation great. Define "great" and state capitalism's role in making it so. I recall much of what built this country was slave labor and cheap immigrant and child labor.
I suggest you put down uncle milties neoliberal teachings and research this a bit further
the free market is not free at all....the reason you love capitalism sooo much is because it is, or was, regulated
if it wasn't, you'd be working for 3 cents a day and singing a very different tune
Non-productive?
That's a rather broad brush you are presuming to use on a very tiny segment of society.
Most are actually tax-paying individuals in lower-paying jobs than those like yourself who were born of the right families on the right side of the tracks.
I think you need to 'get out more' because there are a great many countries doing a much better balancing act between capitalism and so-called socialism (i.e. the teat you refer to) than the mighty US of A.
I mean absolutely no offense by the term "nonproductive", using it strictly in the academic sense. Not loosely to imply laziness but merely meaning those unable to produce the means to sustain themselves without assistance.
I have always been a charitable person, but the more I am taxed the less I can afford to give.
I have always preferred charity over entitlement programs because once something is declared an entitlement people come to view it as something they have a right to expect others to pay for.
People need a home to live in as much as they need healthcare, but the moment the federal government taxes the entire country in order give a home to those who are homeless, we cease to be a free people. Do not allow tyranny to disguise itself as charity. The welfare of the people has long been the alibi of tyrants.
I really can not understand why so many seemingly well meaning people believe in such a system
Is that so horrible?