Obama and Socialism
Barack Obama is a socialist. Right? He wants to “spread the wealth around,” taking money from the rich to give to the poor, and even those who don’t want to work for it. (Wait … does that make Robin Hood a socialist?) Well, let’s have a quick look at socialism.
Socialism is a fairly nebulous term, having been used to describe positions as different as anarchism, communism, and social democracy. At its most neutral, it is, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “a social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.”
But most commonly, people (especially in America) equate it with communism. Because of this, you would be hard-pressed to find any politicians in America describing themselves as social democrats (as you have in Europe). But the idea behind socialism at its most basic is about shared responsibility, shared contribution and shared profit. In reality, it is hard to achieve, but the goal is pretty admirable, isn’t it?
For Christians, this idea of sharing, of interconnectedness, of mutuality shouldn’t be foreign to us. To mention a couple of points, Luke writes in Acts, “the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. … There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need” (4:32, 34-35). And Jesus tells us, “just as you did [or did not] to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40, 45).
Now I’m not saying this automatically translates into a government-sponsored commonality at all, but the whole individualistic idea of everyone looking out for themselves is something I’m a lot less comfortable with. (Perhaps having lived in ‘socialist’ and ‘heathen’ Europe for eight years has rubbed off on me.) Nor am I ragging on those who, through their hard work, are doing very well for themselves. I applaud them, and I commend them when they are generous in giving. But charity is different from justice, because charity doesn’t address the injustices in the system.
As for Obama and socialism, here’s what former Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say:
Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them—in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good, and there’s nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. For us to say that makes you a socialist, I think, is an unfortunate characterization that isn’t accurate.
If you want to play the socialist card regardless, then you’re probably gonna have to acknowledge that the $700b bailout which, in part, will give a bunch of money to failing banks, is socialist, and that McCain’s idea of having the government buy up bad mortgages is pretty socialist too.
I’ve never liked labels or boxes, especially when they’re usually so nebulous—what, for example, does it mean to be a Christian when we’re represented by people as different as Jerry Falwell, Tony Campolo, Gene Robinson, and Jeremiah Wright? But in any and every case, I think we need to be careful how we use them.
This entry was posted on October 20, 2008 at 7:16 pm and is filed under election 2008. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: Barack Obama, election 2008, robin hood, socialism
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
October 21, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I’ve noticed that this aspect of Obama’s tax plan is something that McCain has pretty consistently attacked, yet something with which I find much resonation.
Last year, after taking an ethics course with Glen Stassen, I changed my view on taxes and wealth distribution. The stats on the wealthiest Americans is simply staggering. It’s ridiculous how few have so much of the wealth in this country. After that class, I decided that the wealthiest of the wealthy (top 5%) needed to be taxed more.
As a result, I find it admirable that Obama’s plan for taxes is based on this idea. I don’t know if he has the same desires behind it, but it is definitely an appealing aspect to his platform.
So, socialist or not, I dig it.
October 22, 2008 at 2:58 am
This interaction (with Joe the Plumber) offers some insight into his thinking.
October 22, 2008 at 6:43 pm
It is interesting for me as a Norwegian who now lives in California to observe how irrationally many Americans relate to the word “socialism”. The red scare has made America believe that socialism=communism=evil. Social democratic parties became a major force in many European countries between the world wars. These countries kept a capitalistic economic system but built mechanisms to prevent the owners of capital to exploit the workers, and for a certain redistribution of wealth.
As far as I can understand the United States also has a social democratic economy, just to a lesser extent. Some of the European social democracies has found (at least partial) solutions for some of the problems that the US struggle with, and I hope Americans soon will be able to rationally consider some of these ideas without being biased by the fear of socialism.
But beyond the irrational fear, there is a significant difference concerning the role of the State in social democratic thought and in prevalent American thought. The government is a necessary evil, that we need first and foremost for protection. The government provide us with some services that we are willing to pay a little bit of tax for. It is basically “every American for himself” and the government is outsider intruding in our lives. The ubiquitous phrase “the tax payers money” reflects how Americans think of the government.
In social democratic thought the State or government is “us”. It is not every citizen for themselves. The country is a bit like a family with the government as the mother who makes sure all the kids get to play and get about the same amount of candy. In a family economy the grown children who are able to make an income can’t keep the money to themselves but give there paycheck to the mother so she in her best judgment can take care of the family.
This is of course an idealized picture. In social democratic Norway many “children” are spoiled so they expect the mother State to take care of them in all circumstance without feeling obliged to give anything back. But still a large enough part of the population still has a sense that the state is “us”, so there is a public willingness to let the State steward a good bit of our money to establish justice and provide opportunity for all.
October 22, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Agreed, Andre. I think, perhaps because of the US’s history with communism, with Cuba, Vietnam and Russia, it has come to associate socialism or anything even faintly resembling it with communism. Not that a more social democratic picture doesn’t also have its problems, but America really is a different political creature to the European nations!