ParisTampaBlog

Now it is common among some groups on the Right to label our president a socialist. Is this only name calling, or is there some truth in the designation?

Michael Walzer in an article, “Which Socialism” in this summer’s Dissent Magazine says that “today’s” socialism (or if you  prefer, social democracy) combines three features, each of them crucial to the overall meaning of the word.

These features are:

Democracy, — for a socialistic regime is no less a democratic regime, with rival parties, a well-entrenched right of opposition, and a formally free press.

A (free) market, but, under socialism, one subject to state regulation, resulting in a macro-economy heavily influenced and shaped by government.

A welfare state, meaning the system of entitlements and income redistribution that provides the people with health care, schooling, transportation, a safe environment, security in old age, and basic protection from the failures of the market economy.

Now those who call our president a socialist are not speaking of his obvious democratic leanings, his adherence to a system of rival political parties, his acceptance of a well-entrenched right of opposition, or his promotion of a free press.

Rather the socialist designation probably stems from a combination of Walzer’s second and third features, Obama’s positions on market regulation and entitlements.

In the wake of the recent market collapse and the Gulf oil spill the talk in Washington has been mostly about government regulation of a too free market, one that allowed (caused) these calamities to happen.  And so far Obama seems to be mostly on the side of those who would regulate the oil and financial industries.

Now this may make him a socialist, but is there any other position to take? Who among us would defend no regulation at all of market activities? Probably no one of us, and hence we are no less socialists than Obama. Yes, as I said in my earlier Blog, we are in some respects all socialists now.

Finally we have Walzer’s third feature of modern socialism, the welfare state. Probably when Tea Partiers and other such call Obama a socialist what they really mean is that Obama is furthering the expansion of  the state, and doing so at the expense of individual responsibility and initiative.

This is the position of Guy Sorman who in a City Journal article says that socialism now means the unlimited growth of entitlements and jobs protected by the state. In that regard Obama’s attempt to extend health insurance to all would be just the latest example of this growth, thus earning him the socialist designation.

But there is another point of view to all this that I want to develop, but only in a subsequent Blog. Walzer, and the other liberal democrats, who talk about the role of government are not so much mistaken in what they say. Rather they don’t say enough.

All their talk is about the responsibiity of the state, in Walzer’s discussion the state’s responsibiity to defend democratic values, prevent market abuses, and protect the very young, the very old, all those needing help from the state’s actions and programs.

I can accept Walzer’s three features as being the meaning of socialism today.  And I would say also that there’s nothing wrong with his discussion as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go far enough.

What’s lacking from Walzer’s discussion of socialism is the individual. What Walzer has to say is all about the state. Furthermore there is no apparent awareness that even seemingly reasonable state actions, such as the market regulations and entitlements of which he speaks, may in too many instances also serve to stifle individual growth.

For there are dangers to the individual proceeding from the actions of the state, no less than those from the market. Is Walzer aware of these dangers?

Finally, is our President a socialist? I would say we don’t yet know, but that things don’t look good in this regard. For most of the President’s talk has been about what the state can, and should do for the people, and not what the people need and should do for themselves.

This entry was posted on July 11, 2010 at 12:31 pm and is filed under Political Science. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.