Warning: political rant
I am, generally speaking, a fairly apolitical person. I have come to realize, over the years, that this is because I love truth and hate conflict with almost equal intensity. Honesty does not exactly abound in politics, while conflict is its bread and butter. Occasionally, however, something political will goad my sense of honesty into enough outrage that it overcomes my dislike of conflict. This has happened numerous times over the past election cycle, and, I must add, toward democrats and republicans both.
This is probably a good place to mention that I don't have much love for either major party candidate, both of whom, in my opinion, have major flaws. I consider myself an independent, with libertarian leanings, at least in the abstract. But regardless of my personal political predisposition (alliteration unintended), I do have republican roots and training and therefore can understand the concerns of conservatives. Having said this, I must follow that statement with an expression of my growing dislike for the rhetoric of said conservatives in recent months. They have taken to using scare tactics ("muslim" and "terrorist" being among the worst of their efforts) to convince undecided voters to vote for McCain.
My current preoccupation is with the insistence of many conservatives in labeling Obama a socialist. He isn't. But don't take my word for it. Check out this article (from a conservative source, by the way), which quotes prominent "practicing" socialists--they disavow Obama entirely. Before anyone considers protesting, "What about his promises to 'spread the wealth'," let's take a look at history. Adam Smith himself, sometimes called the "father of capitalism," said in Wealth of Nations, "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." He also said, "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Sound familiar?
Redistribution of wealth in and of itself does not equal Socialism, and neither does a progressive income tax (Oh, and, on a side note, Socialism does not equal Marxism). Both have been a part of our economic system for a long time. Whether or not those things are constitutional is another issue entirely. Furthermore, if Obama is a socialist, then so are Bush, Reagan, and, of course, Palin and McCain. All of them, in elected office, have championed various forms of redistribution of wealth. The only difference is, they didn't have the "audacity" to refer to it in the terms Mr. Obama has.
I'm not telling anyone how to vote. All I'd like to see, is some honesty in public discourse, and some discernment in interpreting what your preferred candidate or media outlet claims--and please, FTLOG, can we consult the dictionary before labeling someone!?!?
This is probably a good place to mention that I don't have much love for either major party candidate, both of whom, in my opinion, have major flaws. I consider myself an independent, with libertarian leanings, at least in the abstract. But regardless of my personal political predisposition (alliteration unintended), I do have republican roots and training and therefore can understand the concerns of conservatives. Having said this, I must follow that statement with an expression of my growing dislike for the rhetoric of said conservatives in recent months. They have taken to using scare tactics ("muslim" and "terrorist" being among the worst of their efforts) to convince undecided voters to vote for McCain.
My current preoccupation is with the insistence of many conservatives in labeling Obama a socialist. He isn't. But don't take my word for it. Check out this article (from a conservative source, by the way), which quotes prominent "practicing" socialists--they disavow Obama entirely. Before anyone considers protesting, "What about his promises to 'spread the wealth'," let's take a look at history. Adam Smith himself, sometimes called the "father of capitalism," said in Wealth of Nations, "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." He also said, "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Sound familiar?
Redistribution of wealth in and of itself does not equal Socialism, and neither does a progressive income tax (Oh, and, on a side note, Socialism does not equal Marxism). Both have been a part of our economic system for a long time. Whether or not those things are constitutional is another issue entirely. Furthermore, if Obama is a socialist, then so are Bush, Reagan, and, of course, Palin and McCain. All of them, in elected office, have championed various forms of redistribution of wealth. The only difference is, they didn't have the "audacity" to refer to it in the terms Mr. Obama has.
I'm not telling anyone how to vote. All I'd like to see, is some honesty in public discourse, and some discernment in interpreting what your preferred candidate or media outlet claims--and please, FTLOG, can we consult the dictionary before labeling someone!?!?