30 Oct The Economist Endorses Obama
30.10.08
|
13 Comments
Okay, now I’m confused. The Republicans keep telling me that Obama is a socialist, a Marxist, and a communist all rolled into one tasty expropriation-minded morsel. So why is The Economist, center-right at best, endorsing him for President? Has the left infiltrated that august journal, as well? Call in Michelle Bachmann!
Read the endorsement here.
When in doubt: Assume it’s a conspiracy.
Professor Heller,
Why is there so much objection to calling Obama a socialist? I agree with you that he is not a socialist relative to the median European politician, but he does believe that the government should play a significant role in income redistribution. In the context of American aversion to income redistribution, he is realtively socialist.
Is there some definition of socialist that I am missing?
The ‘socialist’ tag seems to have been popular among the objectivists and Randists, from my own observations.
NSD,
The objection is pretty clear-cut: nothing about Obama’s policies is even “relatively” socialist. Socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Partially nationalizing banks is “relatively socialist.” Giving welfare to the poor — which is itself an incorrect and tendentious description of Obama’s economic policies — is not.
The other objection, of course, is that McCain and the other wingnuts know full well that Obama isn’t even “relatively” socialist. Their use of the term is simply demagoguery of the lowest kind, designed to scare the less knowledgeable into associating Obama with a concept that Americans have been taught their entire lives to fear. (Because really, who wants to live in a hell-hole like Sweden and Norway, with their damn guaranteed health care and education and housing and happy citizens?)
Is the Economist really centre-right? On economic they may have more in common with the right wing, but they have been unfailingly socially liberal on almost all major issues, and could be much, much more hawkish on US foreign policy as well. In the Europe of its origin, it might be slightly right of centre, if only because social issues don’t make so much of a splash, but in general its policies seem to tend more towards libertarianism than anything else – not the wacky libertarianism of the US political party, mind, but following in the tradition of Milton Friedman.
Why is mild, Burkean-influenced social liberalism incompatible with being centre-right? I mean, after all that you come back full circle to Milton Friedman who is afterall right-wing. Left and right are silly abstractions, but as far as they retain some descriptive power in this context, Kevin is using them correctly within the nomenclature of political economy. The Economist has trenchant fiscally conservative views, and thus their endorsement is just another reason to laugh at the socialism charge, as if the substance of Obama’s agenda and his team of Chicago school economists wasn’t enough. The economist’s presidential endorsements have retained an anti-incumbent bent over the last years, but there’s no doubt they’ve nonetheless published a lot of neo-con clap-trap, especially prior to 2004, so I wouldn’t call them dovish on foreign policy. Maybe compared to the Weekly Standard – but I don’t let my goal posts be moved by the worst outliers on the right. Hawkish is still hawkish. They also have this terribly annoying quasi-enforced policy of constant backhanded cynicism whenever a Democratic candidate is mentioned in a positive light, though no doubt it is to keep ingratiating themselves to their more precious conservative US audience. They have great articles,… Read more »
I suppose there is an interesting discussion on the conflict of terminology here. I would have said that the Economist is fiscally liberal (insomuch as it pursues the goal of individual liberty) rather than fiscally conservate – although I accept that that jars with the political affiliations of the parties that usually occupy those positions. Incidentally, my aim here is not to diminish the impact of the Economist endorsement; the Economist is an important publication. But beyond the abstractions of left and right, the original post, and your response, both imply that the Economist should have a natural inclination towards the Republican party. Perhaps economically, there is a natural tendency there for the magazine to head for the right. But I do think that the magazine seems to consider social issues to be as much its remit these days. On a few issues, such as immigration reform, it finds friends in neither party; but in the vast majority of cases it seems to prefer the relative social liberalism of the Democrats. You’re right to say that it has an anti-incumbent streak, although I do think that it was a lot kinder to Clinton than it was to Reagan or either Bush.… Read more »
Welfare, paid by taxes, is the very textbook example of the government controlling the distribution of goods.
I think this is a doth protest too much situation. I don’t care what you call it, Obama would engage in more wealth distribution than McCain. This is from someone who will vote for Obama.
BTW, those social programs you speak of in Sweden and Norway come at a cost. Why do you think the internet, space travel, the automobile, flight, personal computer, and pretty much every other significant invention has come from the U.S. and not Sweden or Norway. Because you don’t keep what you kill.
NSD,
Excellent — you concede that Obama’s policies aren’t socialist. Perhaps you can understand, then, why he shouldn’t be called one.
I am so sick about this obsession with language. From now on, wealth redistribution will be called “Oooga oooga.”
Anyway, Obama believes more in Oooga oooga then McCain. Do you want to disbute that?
NSD,
I would absolutely dispute that — McCain’s redistribution of wealth to the rich would be vastly greater than Obama’s redistribution of wealth to the poor. But that wasn’t what we were debating, as I am sure you are aware. You began this discussion by asking “why is there so much objection to calling Obama a socialist?” Now that the question has been answered — “because he’s not one” — you complain you are “sick about this obsession with language.” And then you engage in exactly the kind of ridiculous rhetoric that the right so enjoys: pretending that words have absolutely no meaning at all, even conventionally.
When the right stops misusing language, I will happily stop being obsessed with it.
Professor Heller, I have two points for you then I am done. My first is this, the left mis-uses language as well. Expression like “globalization has caused a ‘social genocide’ for some native cultures” strip words like genocide of all meaning. Second, I would have a lot more respect for real hard-core Obama supporters if, rather than fight some battle over semantics, they said something along the line of: “Look, Obama is going to engage in a decent amount of wealth redistribution to the poor from the rich, indeed something that has not been seen in this country since the Great Depression. But, it needs to happen because trade has made the world a riskier place, modern economics has shifted risk from the government and to the American people, and while the rich will be hurt financial they will gain from the improved society that we build. I know that many of you will be angered because you will see stories about ‘wellfare queens’, and I can’t lie to you that some will game the system, but most will not.” Instead of doing that, you argue that Obama is not a socialist and, even more importantly, try to gloss over the… Read more »