SOCIALISM MISREPRESENTED

Parents are easily frightened these days. Some of them
pulled their kids from school when the president spoke
there, lest their tender ears be seduced by "socialism"!
What there is in hard work, self respect, goal setting and
pride of accomplishment that is socialistic remains a mys-
tery. Isn't that what capitalism is about? Has Obama
ever said anything in favor of socialism? Please tell me
me what and where. I've missed it.

He has rejected out of hand single payer health insurance.
But even Canada's single payer plan isn't socialism. It
works with private doctors and private hospitals. In
socialism, the government owns and operates the hospi-
tals and employs doctors and nurses. That's not advo-
cated by anyone here for our general population.

Our VA hospitals are government run and highly rated
for cost efficiency and medical excellence. That, of course,
is socialism, as is our mail service, military establishment,
government run schools, fire departments, police and so on.
All of them work O. K. when properly funded and managed.
Medicare isn't socialism, but it is single-payer health care,
well run and well liked. It needs some re-working and better
funding.

If Obama was for socialism, he wouldn't have saved the big
banks. He would have nationalized them like Paul Krugman,
Joe Stiglitz and other top economists urged him to do. Ditto
for GM.

Obama is a communitarian, as are most Democrats. People
are confusing that with socialism. It's a confusion aided and
abetted by Obama haters like Rush, Beck and Hannity. They
equate liberals with everything vile and un-American they
can dream up. Actually, half our population is liberal when
it comes to government help for the needy. Does that make
half the country socialists? No, it makes them communitarians
that believe the common good (general welfare) as a political
goal must take precedence over private gain and advantage.

Most Republicans are economic libertarians. They are not all
social conservatives. Barry Goldwater, who got the libertarian
movement rolling politically, was for choice on abortion, and
for gays in the military. Libertarians are social Darwinists (SDs).
They believe it's a jungle out there, and the fittest will survive
and prosper. Losers must serve the winners on the latters'
terms. That's just the way it is!

Communitarians prize what nurtures and promotes communi-
ty well being for all. It applauds individual success insofar as
as that benefits the community. It usually does. That results
in the common good.

Social Darwinists (SDs) prize freedom to excel and enjoy the
rewards of that success above concern for the less privileged.
It's "survival of the fittest." The big fish eat the little fish. SDs
usually deny there is inherent conflict between the common
good and individual success. "A rising tide lifts all boats," they
claim. Look around you! Is that happening? The stock mar-
ket is recovering. Are the homeless? The jobless? They don't
have boats. They're drowning. Communitarians say "that's
wrong." SDs say, "that's life." And "life isn't fair, so why
should we try to be?"

So there you have it: Obama is a communitarian (liberal).
His detractors are confusing that with socialism because
they don't know the difference, but are sure it's anti-
American. That's why they depict him as a foreigner,
Marxist, Muslim, whatever vile they can think of.

They also don't know that all the great religions, including
Secular Humanism, are communitarian. They all teach
that we have a primary responsibility for the welfare and
concerns of our fellow human beings. They all tell us, in
fact command us to do unto (for) others as we would have
them do for us. Religious people who are not communi-
tarians, and support social darwinism instead are not
properly instructed in the basic teachings of their faith.
To understand this, the writings of the current Pope and
the Dalai Lama are good places to start.

Let me hear what you think!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

UNNECESSARY TRAGEDY

"Relying on the use of force as a centerpiece of our global
strategy, as we have in recent years, is economically,
strategically and politically unsustainable and will result
in unnecessary tragedy -- especially for the men and
women, and their families, who serve our country"
---former Sen. Chuck Hagel

Since my last blog (Aug. 25) several prominent colum-
nists and political leaders have come out strongly against
escalating our military efforts in Afghanistan. Among
the most persuasive articles I have seen are those by Geo.
Will (in WaPo), Bob Herbert (NYT) and Malou Innocent
of the Cato Inst., writing in the Huffington Post. That, of
course includes the article quoted above from former
Sen. Hagel (in WaPo).along the same lines. Vice Pres.
Biden is known to be making similar arguments within
the inner councils of the administration.

All of the above reject the "war of necessity" argument
being put forward by the Obama administration. Mathew
Yglesias ( whom I'll always read, on any subject) quotes
Helene Cooper, who wrote: "Administration officials say
privately that they believe that they have 12 months to
show significant progress in Afghanistan before they totally
lose public support." Yglesias says of Cooper's report: "I
wish one of our crackerjack reporters here in D. C. would
try to get these 'administration officials' to explain how this
interacts with their recent embrace of 'war of necessity'
rhetoric. I can see a few possibilities:

---Since this is a war of necessity, they intend to keep
fighting it even if there's no progress after 12 months, so if
there isn't progress they'll try to mislead the public into
thinking there is." (That, of course, is just what happened
with other unnecessary wars in Iraq and Viet Nam.)

---(Still quoting Yglesias:) "If there's no progress after 12
months, they'll bow to public pressure to withdraw even
though that would mean 'losing' a 'war of necessity.'

---The same officials who privately say the war effort may
collapse in 12 months also 'privately' know that this talk
about a 'war of necessity' doesn't make sense, but they're
using the rhetoric anyway in order to bolster public support
right now.

---The relevant officials are supremely self-confident about
their own abilities, and just haven't bothered to think about
Plan B in case they're unable to deliver significant progress
over the next 12 months."

Bob Herbert (about increasing our troop numbers there:)
"These will be troops heading into the flames of a no-win
situation. We're fighting on behalf of an incompetent and
hopelessly corrupt government in Afghanistan. If our ulti-
mate goal, as the administration tells us, is a government
that can effectively run the country, protect its population
and defeat the Taliban, our troops will be fighting and dying
in Afghanistan for many, many years to come."

Malour Innocent (in 9/4/09 Huffington Post regarding
nation building there): "First, Afghanistan has yet to de-
monstrate the capability to function as a cohesive, modern,
nation state, with or without us -- and perhaps never will
(that's my own belief). Many tribes living in rural, isolated
and sparsely populated provinces have little interest co-
operating with 'foreigners,' a relative term considering the
limited contact many have with their country's own central
government.

Second, arguments supporting a multi-decade commitment
of armed 'nation building' --the words of another civilian
advisor to the mission, Anthony Cordesman -- overlook
whether such an ambitious project can be done within costs
acceptable to the American public. Our attempt to trans-
form what is a deeply divided, poverty stricken, tri-
bal-based society -- while our own country faces
economic peril -- is nothing short of ludicrous,
especially since even the limited goal of creating a
self-sufficient, non-corrupt, stable electoral democ-
racy would require a multi-decade commitment --
and even then there'd be no assurance of success."
(Emphasis mine.)

That pretty much covers it!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net