Obama, the New Party and Stanley Kurtz's Horror
I wouldn't normally bother to wade into the the fevered discussion currently happening on the Right over Barack Obama's purported ties to ACORN, domestic terrorists, and so on, but Stanley Kurtz, one of the lead theorists of all of this, over on National Review Online, has done me the favor of actually reading my book on third parties in America, Spoiling for a Fight, and quotes generously from my chapter on the rise of the New Party, to buttress his claim that Obama is secretly a socialist, "substantially to the left of the Democratic Party mainstream" and "far from the post-partisan, post-ideological pragmatist he pretends to be."
Okay. For the purposes of argument, let's stipulate that Obama was indeed a member of the New Party in 1996 when he ran for state senate in Illinois in 1996. I don't doubt that he was endorsed by the New Party, if that's what this NP newsletter uncovered by the Powerline blog shows.
My point is, so what?
Kurtz, who seems as obsessed as the Joseph Conrad character he shares a name with, imagines that the New Party was some kind of "hard-left," "militant" "party-within-a-party" with a master plan for subverting the US economy and political system. He waves the red flag of "socialism" around a few times, notes my own description of the New Party as being "social democratic" and then ultimately settles on the scary sounding "redistributionist" as its sneaky socialist goal. (As if all of Washington's various programs, subsidies and tax rules--many which favor the wealthy and big corporations, and some which help the middle class and the poor--aren't already "redistributionist.")
Considering that it's President Bush who has presided over the biggest nationalization of American banking since the 1930s, it must be hard for Kurtz and his ilk to understand the difference between socialism and "social democratic." It starts with a fundamental distinction on the role of the state. Socialists want the state to own industries; social democrats want to use government's tool chest to bend private industry toward public goods.
Here's what the New Party's founders wrote about their goals, from a section of the chapter in my book that Kurtz didn't bother to include in his NRO post:
We are tired and outraged by the corruptions of U.S. party politics and the public policies they produce. We are fed up with declining living standards, rising poverty and inequality, bad jobs and bad wages, racial and gender injustice, and the denial of a fulfilling life to too many working Americans and their children. We are fed up with exporting violence abroad, lying to citizens at home, and leaving political power to the rich and infamous.
What do we want? We want to invest in ourselves: in health, education, housing, retraining and physical infrastructure. We want an economy that is competitive, trade that is not ruinous to our standards of living, and an ordering of economic relations that doesn't wreck the environment on which we all depend. We want to reward hard work: with better wages, working conditions, and a say in the running of the economy. We want accountable government that works, and a political process that's not completely corrupted by big money interests. We want fair taxes, based on the ability to pay. We want to build a pluralist society where skin color doesn't determine life chances, gender doesn't determine labor market position, sexual preference doesn't lead to ostracism, every child is housed and fed and decently educated, and the parents of each child are respected for doing the hardest work of all--raising and nurturing the children who will be our future. We want, in short, to take this country back. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's that simple.
To be honest, it's hard for me to see how this differs substantially from what Obama is talking about today. The horror, Kurtz, the horror!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
No need to "stipulate," Obama's socialist membership is now without dispute: http://4.b
As for "so what?" The answer is simple: socialism is a disaster. The policies he promotes cannot be rationally defended, which is why neither you nor anyone else bothers to try. Instead we get platitudes about his "judgment" as reasons to support him. You want to vote based on personality, ignoring the evidence and merits of his positions, have at it. You'll deserve the 15% unemployment rate, stagflation and REAL depression he creates; the rest of us, unfortunately, won't.
Clearly the IRS site is confusing folks - so I'll show the link from the tax policy institute (same folks who give us the Obama tax plan will result in a benefit for 90% of working families - so you know it must be true) :
http://www
Look under share of individual income tax liability (takes out the payroll taxes) in 2005 - the bottom quintile paid negative 2.9%, the next quintile negative -0.9 percent then you get to the foks that pay federal income taxes. So the bottom to quintiles or 40% have a negative income tax burden. Now look at the top 10% - 54.7% (my previous numbers were for 2006.
Please also spend a few minutes to look at how they've changed over time - it's illuminating. The bottom 20% have historically paid little income tax - but it's only since 2002 where the next quintile didn't pay income tax (hmmmm what happened that year)
Obama's lingering problem is that with all his money, he has nothing new to say. He has been repeating the same mantra for his campaign over and over again ever since the spring. By now, we all know that he wants to extend health insurance to "47 million Americans" (never mind that 10 million are here illegally) and wants to cut taxes for "95 percent of the population" (never mind that 42% don't pay any taxes to begin with and the 'tax cut' is really just a welfare check). He has nothing new to offer intelligent voters.
Happy Dae.
http://www
I admit that I'm not an authority on the philosophical and theoretical differences between socialism, capitalism & communism, but this seems to make good, logical sense to me:
What do we want? We want to invest in ourselves: in health, education, housing, retraining and physical infrastructure. We want an economy that is competitive, trade that is not ruinous to our standards of living, and an ordering of economic relations that doesn't wreck the environment on which we all depend. We want to reward hard work: with better wages, working conditions, and a say in the running of the economy. We want accountable government that works, and a political process that's not completely corrupted by big money interests. We want fair taxes, based on the ability to pay. We want to build a pluralist society where skin color doesn't determine life chances, gender doesn't determine labor market position, sexual preference doesn't lead to ostracism, every child is housed and fed and decently educated, and the parents of each child are respected for doing the hardest work of all--raising and nurturing the children who will be our future. We want, in short, to take this country back. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's that simple.
Someone please show me the problem here, and how wanting these things is un-American, un-patriotic, socialist, leftist, and a threat to democracy.
Don't worry.
I'll wait.
It sounds really good to me, Natasha.
Happy Dae.
Awww, Debbie. Don't worry, I'll be paying that extra $121 per year with you. I'm not sweating it. If you can manage to stick $10/month away each year, you won't even flinch.
http://www
Sorry to disappoint you it's not $121 - the study is based on the assumption that the current tax rates expire - all McCain is doing is keeping the tax rates THE SAME as today - so to see how much more I'd pay next year you'd have to look at the McCain "saved" column which is $8,159 in the study you cited. That is one of my biggest frustrations with this tax discussion - McCain is NOT talking about lowering individual tax rates - he's talking about keeping them the same as they are currently.
The capitalism that the right breaches (never follows when things go tot $hit).. is laisez faire capitalism and borrow and spend plus free trade.
No one else practices that crap in the world because it always fails. By their defintion we are the only capitalist country in the world.
regards
I'm sorry, but I must be a Canadian or a Social Democrat or something because I don't see anything wrong with the New Party's goals. Sounds like my kindda party.
kurtz doesn't know the difference between socialism and social democrats.
Part of the problem is that the Right either doesn't know or doesn't care that there are big differences between socialism and communism. In such small language differences, large misunderstandings lurk.
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Communism: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Actually while I certainly am not part of right - I do know and do care about the difference between socialism and communism and socialism and capitalism - I do not advocate the ownership or distribution of capital land etc to the community as a whole -whether it's through a totalitarian government or not.
You apparently do NOT know the difference, or you wouldn't be posting this kind of nonsense in regards to the article above.
Pathetic.
This is a simple issue to resolve; Based on campaign financing, is it he that went cap in hand and took tax payers'/goverment money or the person who depends on the private donors without government support or handout is a to be labeled a socialist? Think about it!
That's quite a bit of fancy analytical thinking there.
There's a huge amount of irony from the Canadian perspective that, in order to become more "socialist" the Democratic Party has to become the New Democractic Party ;)
republicans will say and do almost anything at this point because they know they are going to lose big time. they have been doing a horrible job and their efforts show all they care about are helping the super rich people while they haven't a care in the world for any of the other 95% of the people in tis country. republicans still try to wrangle in votes with fear and loaded buzzwords. As far as taxes, the republicans don't care how much the rest of us pay as long as their friends in high places make out like bandits while they throw garbage on everyone else. the republicans have been practicing a class warfare against 95% of the people for a long time.
with 40% of working American's paying NO INCOME taxes - The top 5% pay 50% of all income taxes - they sure are making out like bandits! If you actually pay income taxes - be afraid, be very, very afraid.
Troll: your 40% figure is a complete GOP fantasy. Get your facts straight.
Your figures are complete rubbish. I defy you to produce hard studies - not Fox News reports - that back up your claim.
Excuse me? This is absolutely NOT true. From the time I was being paid minimum wage to now just in the middle class I am paying taxes. Who are these 40% you are talking about?
Debbie, if you are one of those in the upper tax brackets paying so much in tax, then by all means... you are welcome to move to another country that offers you as many advantages as the US. Perhaps, Columbia?
Well, I do pay income taxes, I am close to the top one percent and I am not afraid. Instead I am saying:
TAX ME MORE. ASK ME TO HELP TO MAKE THIS COUNTRY BETTER.
And if you, Debbie, don't, then we both know what you are.
It's called "an egotistical little brat".
To quote the all wise wikipedia "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%." Based on that fact, it seems entirely reasonable for the top 5% to pay 50% of taxes, seeing as how they have about 50% of the money.
What a great post. Bravo!
So "social democratic" is essentially a "socialism lite". And is that supposed to make me feel better? Socialism, no matter how one tries to repackage and relabel it, is still socialism.
Do you even know what socialism is????
Learn about it, then try thinking for yourself. It works wonders.
It worked wonders where exactly? We see even the the most committed socialist countries moving toward capitalism. It is a failed economic theory period.
He/she won't think. The pavlovian reaction to the label is easier than thinking.
If you are such a economic genious, please by all means educate me.
from Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: social democracy
Function: noun
Date: 1850
1 : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2 : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices
And Democratic
By that logic, the United States is "democratic lite."
Most of Europe has a social democratic system. The end result? They are better educated than we are. They have access to preventative medical care. They do not have the 37th worst child mortality rate like we do. Wages keep up with inflation for working people. There are fewer people in poverty. The crime rate is much lower. They provide public transportation. As a result, 25 thousand people do not die every year from car accidents, and billions of dollars in property damage do not occur annually as they do in the U.S. The elderly do not become sequestered in their homes because they cannot drive.
Personally, I don't care how low-intellect voters feel when they can't manage enough intellectual curiosity to know anything about the subject under discussion.
READ A BOOK...it won't kill you.
Atlas Shrugged
Rollo Tomasi is an imaginary character from the 1997 movie L.A. Confidential. While not a real person (even within the fictional movie), he is a metaphor for the sort of criminal who is able to completely get away with his crime.
I get tired of the anti-Intellectuals like Mossberg having so much free speech.
Why am I an anti-intellectual? Because I have a differing opinion on economic and political theories?
Mossberg, you have no clue. Go home.
Republicans are quick to abandon their basic philosophies when they see that they h ave "SCREWED THINGS UP" such as nationalizing the banks, even though it galls them to do so. Their "trickle down" economic theory has peaked and proven it's a bunch of bunk when those from which it's supposed to trickle down are corrupt, greedy and most of all, unregulated. Instead, it's flowed UP to the rich, greedy and corrupt and left the American taxpayer holding the bag for the bill. They would continue this unfair policy if left to do so which is why we must elect Obama/Biden for real change to save this country and it's middle class. Republicans don't care about them and only care about THEIR MONEY...th
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
