Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

THE BOGEYMAN: Calling President Obama communist and fascist is ironic

Published: Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Updated: Thursday, April 1, 2010 12:04

neal coleman.jpg

Neal Coleman is a senior math, physics and economics major and writes 'The Bogeyman' for the Daily News. His views do not necessarily agree with those of the newspaper.

Let's get something straight. President Barack Obama is not a socialist; Obama is not a Marxist; Obama is not a communist and Obama is not a fascist.


Do the people who call Obama communist and fascist in the same breath realize the irony of saying that? Obama is an American Democrat. Today that means he's about as left-wing as Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower.


Joseph Stalin? Nothing like him.


For example, let's take the health care bill. If the government were extremely socialist, we would have tried to pass something that resembles the health care systems of Britain or France — systems where the national government owns all of the hospitals, employs all of the health workers and provides everybody's service. If the government were middle of the road, we might have seen a proposal more like Canada's, where the government provides insurance, sets prices and contracts with private hospitals and doctors to provide care. (Did you know Canada's health care act was 14 pages long? Seven in English, seven in French.)

Guess what? We didn't see a single one of those options proposed.


The closest we got was a public option — a watered-down junior version of socialized insurance. Even that was dropped in favor of a reform that is about as right-wing as you can get while still reforming ­— an insurance mandate. Everyone is now required to buy insurance or pay an extra tax. If you can't afford it, the government will subsidize you, channeling money, coincidentally, right into the health insurance industry's pockets.


This is the sort of system Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts, except the federal version will have a higher penalty for opting out.


Do you know where this style of reform package came from? It was a Republican alternative to single-payer plans and employer mandates, which they strongly pushed for in opposition to the Clintons' overhaul attempt in the early '90s. An employer mandate, by the way, was Nixon's more liberal, union-friendly idea to overhaul health care. That's right: Obama, on health care, is more conservative than Richard Nixon.


Checking out other elements of Obama's record, it's pretty stunning how the administration has taken over all the heavy industry in the country and instituted the Central Economic Planning committee. I'm really impressed with the way they've begun reindustrializing the Rust Belt and simultaneously redesigning regional major cities.


At least that's what it would have been like if Obama actually was a communist.


The way things are? Tax cuts are on the agenda. Guantanamo Bay is still open. We are executing a surge into Afghanistan. And, just this morning, I heard we are now letting (private) oil companies drill offshore. Man, Obama is such a left-winger!

What about nationalizing the auto industry? Okay, I'll admit, that's pretty left-wing. But note two things: First, the government will be selling the automakers "once they're back on their feet." Second, this was not nationalization for the sake of nationalization — this was nationalization because, being the Democratic party, Obama is beholden to unions, especially the UAW. He's certainly not Ayn Rand.


Let me also point out that it was President George W. Bush who pushed for the financial industry bailout (read: implicit takeover), and many of the same Republicans crying "socialism" voted to pump federal money into Wall Street pockets.


So where does this leave us?

In November 2008, Obama was elected to apocalyptic predictions among the right-wing punditry. He went on to propose health care reform very similar to the reform the Republicans themselves pushed 15 years ago.


The Republican demagoguery, of course, screamed "Socialism!" and "Takeover!" The Republican leadership, politically bound to the demagogues, locked step and moved even further to the right. That's the problem — so few people permit themselves to think critically in evaluating current events.


If they had the intellectual perspicuity and educational background to understand socialism, communism and fascism, they wouldn't make the mistake of blindly agreeing when their angry talking head of choice oversimplifies reality.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

32 comments

Anonymous
Tue Jan 11 2011 23:34
Please dispute this: Lenin separated himself from other communist because he believe that the peasant class would create a revolution unlike the union class. The union class could be bought off with wage increases as the case today. Cloward (sp) and Piven believe basically the same thing. Pressure the system to the breaking point, then creating an environment in which the peasant class (now welfare class) will revolt. No one can deny that one of President Obama's icons is Saul Alinsky (sp). Alinsky is by definition a Leninist. Progressivism is just the cover for this type of movement. Problem here with our system, most leftist murder off leftist that they consider well, not leftist enough. President Obama needs a mechanism to give him no choice but to "govern" as a totalitarian. Baby steps, just baby steps........
TechnicalBuddha
Tue Apr 27 2010 19:25
dogmatic [dɒgˈmætɪk], dogmatical
adj
1.
a. (of a statement, opinion, etc.) forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable
b. (of a person) prone to making such statements
2. (Philosophy) of, relating to, or constituting dogma dogmatic writings
3. based on assumption rather than empirical observation
dogmatically adv

I advise a quick google of logical fallacies for commentators here and also a quick review on how to make an argument.

Those that I see asserting one thing or another "The liberals have said so themselves that its a stepping stone to socialized medicine" or "Obama is a socialist !" "Stop them before your freedom is gone !"

are basically ASSERTING the answer is 5 without stating how they got that answer. There's no 3+2 = 5 or 7 + (-2) = 5, all I'm seeing is "the answer is 5 !!!!" over and over again, therefore, Dogmatic. The answer may indeed be 5, but until you show hard facts to support your answer ( 3 + 2 = ), you can't possibly expect to be taken seriously.

+1 on the article, made some good points in there.

Anonymous
Fri Apr 16 2010 04:51
Well done, sir! At least their is one sane person besides myself out there who understands what Obama is all about. But, I am so frustrated because Obama is way too conservative for me, not really change we can believe in. Tell you what, when you run for office you have my vote!
If you dont do that, at least get your own radio show!
Anonymous
Tue Apr 13 2010 19:12
I wish there were some Republicans who could post rational arguments that might sway me. There used to be such, but now they appear to be angry people screaming against anything Obama proposes. They have demonized him in their own minds and have become suseptable to the most outrageous distortions anyone could think up, thereby invalidating any crediblity they might have had. It is unfortunate. Good article Neal
Anonymous
Mon Apr 12 2010 19:38
Wow there's a lot of flaming among some of these comments. I'm glad you pointed out the irony of calling someone both a Communist and a Fascist, Neal, but I wish you'd gone into greater detail about the ways in which those movements are near opposites which violently oppose one another. I guess that wasn't really meant to be the focus of your article, but one of the things that annoys me most is when people equate Fascism and Communism. They are almost opposite movements (Although during wartime the Fascists nationalized key industries like steel and aircraft), so calling someone both is silly fear-mongering.
Anonymous
Fri Apr 9 2010 11:10
Good job, Neal! It's about time someone breathed some truth into this debate. All of the Obama nay-sayers love to compare him to Marx or Lenin, when, in reality (as you said), many of the details in this new health care bill were introduced by their beloved Republicans — not Democrats. I also find it ironic when they cry about freedom to choose and how being forced to by something isn't Constitutional when Hawaii (that little island that's part of the DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLIC United States) has had government-mandated health care for the last 40 years. Of course, like with any government-run system, it has its flaws, the majority of its beneficiaries seem to think it's crazy to ever live somewhere that doesn't guarantee health care. So, is Hawaii socialist? No. Just like the U.S. and President Obama aren't socialist.
Anonymous
Thu Apr 8 2010 08:39
Wow, it is true that some people will really drink the Kool-aid without even thinking about it! You are watching your freedom disappear before your very eyes and don't even care. Wake up before it is to late!
Anonymous
Wed Apr 7 2010 16:28
"If (the Republican leadership) had the intellectual perspicuity and educational background to understand socialism, communism and fascism, they wouldn’t make the mistake of blindly agreeing when their angry talking head of choice oversimplifies reality."

If you're talking about Glen Beck, you just exposed your ignorance. Beck is an avowed Libertarian, not Republican.

But keep calling everyone else stupid and ignorant. That just makes you look small and petty.

Anonymous
Wed Apr 7 2010 16:21
The health care bill is merely a stepping-stone to socialized medicine. The liberals in Congress have admitted as much. They dropped the public option because they couldn't get the votes for it, since there was so little public support, and so much public opposition.

Obama IS a socialist. That much has been made clear form his first year in office. I just hope we can survive 3 more years without being spent into bankruptcy.

Anti-Obamunist
Sat Apr 3 2010 01:32
Actually our President is an something quite different.

Barack Obama has taken the very best of Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Marxism, Maoism, ect... (only the good parts) and bundled them up in brand new Ideology which is Obamunism.

One of the reasons that Obamunism is so successfull is because unlike its primitive predessors (Communism, Socialism, Fascism) Obamunism provides the manufactured proliteriate (or the Obamunite) with a NEW GOD that he/she/it can see and hear.

Also Obamunism is mearly the template for future Obamunistic Empires where tommorows dicators, leaders, presidents and emporers can use the religious techniques of Obamunism to mezmerize the millions.

Yes Obamunism! It is here to stay. And while it might eventually lose some support in America Obamunism will spread worldwide and eventually across the galaxies. So love it or hate it you better get used to it. Obamunism won't going away and either will the Obamunites.

marxbama
Fri Apr 2 2010 06:08
no wonder david letterman is so obtuse. must be something in the balls, tate.

perfect april fool's day joke!

Anonymous
Thu Apr 1 2010 20:53
Let's see, Obama and the Dems have taken over the car industry, the banks, the student loan program, the health insurance industry, BUT they are not socialists? Even my cat knows better.
Anonymous
Thu Apr 1 2010 20:45
YIKES! After reading this, Alice in Wonderland seems like a reality show, and I am about ready to agree with Dem Congressman Hank Johnson that Guam could capsize. This is by far the craziest BS I have ever read. Neal, why are you tripping....
6575g
Thu Apr 1 2010 17:10
Socialism and Fascism are not opposites, and can work together. Indeed, socialist policies are great for the workers of the business state. hence great for the businesses, who don't have to take the risks of personnel loss to disease.

Maybe you speak of State Capitalism when you say the government takes over the businesses?

Anonymous
Thu Apr 1 2010 17:06
You are mixing up Party names with economic ideology. Of course Obama is a democrat, but his economic ideology is socialism. You argue against his socialist ideology by comparing him to Mitt Romney and George Bush, hardly free-market politicians. Keep the political party names out of the argument because there are and have been plenty of Republicans who have espoused socialist ideas (Medicare D comes to mind). Think in terms of socialism versus free-market principles and it becomes clear: Obamacare is falls in the socialism camp, regardless of where the ideas come from; I have not yet finished reading the whole bill, but I have not found anything that resembles free market principles. To suggest that Obama is not a socialist idealist is simply silly and putting your head in the sand. this is not name calling, it is just calling something for what it is. If you are also a socialist, then stand up and cheer, you have a friend in the White House.
Anonymous
Thu Apr 1 2010 16:52
To the person complaining about how terrible the US Government is at running things

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill.

No one said that the government does things perfectly. Then again, I'm not sure of many systems that are perfect. While we should constantly strive for perfection we shouldn't constantly expect it, lest we be disappointed. Any government that is for the people and by the people is consequently built on people, and as we all know people are imperfect.

Anonymous
Thu Apr 1 2010 16:46
"The fact that you're a journalist and you did horrible research is the only thing that's ironic here. "

Actually Neal is an opinion columnist, which is different than basic journalism. Rush Limbaugh, for example, pontificates on a daily basis and does not hold any kind of degree. But why split hairs?

The more important question here is this "why is Neal's "research" horrible"? Please, I would love for you to bring your considerable powers of intellect to our conversation. Enlight us, dear anonymous, because we're dying to hear your erudite commentary. Do you have any facts or are you content to lob half-assed insults Neal's direction?

Anonymous
Thu Apr 1 2010 16:21
Republicans and Democrats are no different . They simply are two parties that split the wealth of the
hard working American. The US Government builds poorly engineered roads. If you ever see a highway
built by a Private Sector Contractor its always better built that one designed and constructed by a department in the US Government. Law Enforcement is poor in the United States. Look at the number of sex offenders for example that
move away from their listed address and cant be located(See John Albert Gardner-enough said ). All they care about
is their $50000 plus salary while writing up more tickets to fund their massive government. Huge waste.
Fire Departments do an ok job but dont demand power lines be put underground so they dont cause fires because Electric companies have US Government politicians in their back pocket . The Department of Education is a gigantic unionized fiscal mess that obviously does not work. And you can list uncountable disasters of US Department of Everything Possible but it would feel like forever to explain the pathetic incompetence so you dont even want to attempt it. The US Government has been socialist for a VERY long time starting with
the original socialist Anti American Alexander Hamilton
Jerry
Thu Apr 1 2010 14:54
Interesting fact the post office is ran by the government but receives no government incentives
Anonymous
Thu Apr 1 2010 14:25
The fact that you're a journalist and you did horrible research is the only thing that's ironic here.






log out