Jonah Goldberg addresses in a serious essay the commonly heard debate on whether terms like Marxist and Socialist may be accurately applied to Barack Obama.
[I]s it correct, as an objective matter, to call Obamaâ€™s agenda â€œsocialistâ€? That depends on what one means by socialism. The term has so many associations and has been used to describe so many divergent political and economic approaches that the only meaning sure to garner consensus is an assertive statism applied in the larger cause of â€œequality,â€ usually through redistributive economic policies that involve a bias toward taking an intrusive and domineering role in the workings of the private sector. One might also apply another yardstick: an ambivalence, even antipathy, for democracy when democracy proves inconvenient.1 With this understanding as a vague guideline, the answer is certainly, Yes, Obamaâ€™s agenda is socialist in a broad sense. The Obama administration may not have planned on seizing the means of automobile production or asserting managerial control over Wall Street. But when faced with the choice, it did both. Obama did explicitly plan on imposing a massive restructuring of one-sixth of the U.S. economy through the use of state fiatâ€”and he is beginning to do precisely that.
Obama has, on numerous occasions, placed himself within the progressive intellectual and political tradition going back to Theodore Roosevelt and running through Franklin Roosevelt. With a few exceptions, the progressive political agenda has always been to argue for piecemeal reforms, not instant transformative changeâ€”but reforms that always expand the size, scope, and authority of the state. This approach has numerous benefits. For starters, itâ€™s more realistic tactically. By concentrating on the notion of reform rather than revolution, progressives can work to attract both ideologues of the Left and moderates at the same time. This allows moderates to be seduced by their own rhetoric about the virtues of a specific reform as an end in itself. Meanwhile, more sophisticated ideologues understand that they are supporting a camelâ€™s-nose strategy. In an unguarded moment during the health-care debate in 2009, Representative Barney Frank confessed that he saw the â€œpublic option,â€ the supposedly limited program that would have given the federal government a direct role as an insurer in competition with private insurers, as merely a way station to a single-payer system in which the government is the sole provider of health care. In his September 2009 joint-session address to Congress on health care, President Obama insisted that â€œI am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.â€ Six months later, when he got the health-care bill he wanted, he insisted that it was only a critical â€œfirst stepâ€ to overhauling the system. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was one of the relatively few self-described moderates who both understood the tactic and supported it. â€œThere seems no inherent obstacle,â€ Schlesinger wrote in 1947, â€œto the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.â€
Goldberg places Obama decidedly outside the Revolutionary Marxist “hot socialism” tradition and firmly in the Fabian tradition of incremental, gradual, “first step” subversion of liberty. Obama adroitly dismisses accuses of his being a socialist as evidence of his opponents’ ideological blindness. He is merely a pragmatist, committed to “solving problems.”
But whether one identifies Obama as a social-ist instead of a socialist, a neosocialist, or merely a progressive, there can be no doubt that Barack Obama’s political agenda is as thoroughly committed to expanding the regulatory authority and share of the economy controlled by government as the Romanovs were to the gathering of the Russian lands.
Denying that you are an ideologue is not the same thing as proving the point. And certainly Obamaâ€™s insistence that ideology is something only his critics suffer from is no defense when stacked against the evidence of his actions. The â€œpragmaticâ€ Obama is only interested in â€œwhat worksâ€ as long as â€œwhat worksâ€ involves a significantly expanded role for government. In this sense, Obama is a practitioner of the Third Way, the governing approach most successfully trumpeted by Blair, who claimed to have found a â€œthird wayâ€ that rejected the false premises of both Left and Right and thereby located a â€œsmarterâ€ approach to expanding government. The powerful appeal of this idea lies in the fact that it sounds as if its adherents have rejected ideological dogmatism and gone beyond those â€œfalse choices.â€ Thus, a leader can both provide health care to 32 million people and save money, or, as Obama likes to say, â€œbend the cost curve down.â€ But in not choosing, Obama is choosing. He is choosing the path of government control, which is what the Third Way inevitably does and is intended to do.
Still, the question remains, What do we call Obamaâ€™s â€œsocial-ismâ€? John Judisâ€™s formulationâ€”â€œliberal socialismâ€â€”is perfectly serviceable, and so is â€œsocial democracyâ€ or, for that matter, simply â€œprogressivism.â€ My own, perhaps too playful, suggestion would be neosocialism. …
In many respects, Barack Obamaâ€™s neo-socialism is neoconservatismâ€™s mirror image. Openly committed to ending the Reagan era, Obama is a firm believer in the power of government to extend its scope and grasp far deeper into society. In much the same way that neoconservatives accepted a realistic and limited role for the government, Obama tolerates a limited and realistic role for the market: its wealth is necessary for the continuation and expansion of the welfare state and social justice. While neoconservatism erred on the side of trusting the nongovernmental sphereâ€”mediating institutions like markets, civil society, and the familyâ€”neosocialism gives the benefit of the doubt to government. Whereas neoconservatism was inherently skeptical of the ability of social planners to repeal the law of unintended consequences, Obamaâ€™s ideal is to leave social policy in their hands and to bemoan the interference of the merely political.
â€œI would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care, and didnâ€™t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed,â€ he told CBSâ€™s Katie Couric. â€œBut thatâ€™s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.â€
Whereas Ronald Reagan saw the answers to our problems in the private sphere (â€œin this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problemâ€), Obama seeks to expand confidence in, and reliance on, government wherever and whenever he can, albeit within the confines of a generally Center-Right nation and the â€œunfortunateâ€ demands of democracy.
As with Webbâ€™s Fabian socialism, one will never be able to say of Obamaâ€™s developing doctrine, â€œnow socialism has arrived.â€ On the night the House of Representatives passed the health-care bill, Obama said, â€œThis legislation will not fix everything that ails our health care system. But it moves us decisively in the right direction.â€ Then, speaking specifically of another vote to be taken in the Senate but also cleverly to those not yet satisfied with what had been achieved, he added, â€œNow, as momentous as this day is, itâ€™s not the end of this journey.â€
Under Obamaâ€™s neosocialism, that journey will be endless, and no matter how far down the road toward socialism we go, he will always be there to tell the increasingly beleaguered marchers that we have only taken a â€œcritical first step.â€
Read the whole thing.