Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why Obama's the Least Socialistic President in Modern History (And That's a Shame) [View all]

I'll side with the Pink Lady over Tricky Dick, any time.
Why Obama's the Least Socialistic President in Modern History (And That's a Shame)
By Richard (RJ) Eskow
AlterNet, February 18, 2012
The Republican presidential candidates keep calling Barack Obama a socialist. If they're trying to invoke the Red Menace like Republicans of past campaigns, they're a generation too late. Americans between the ages of 19 and 29 have no memory of the Cold War. Today they have a more positive impression of socialism than they do of capitalism.
SNIP...
The Republicans who call Obama a socialist are using a GOP tactic that reached its zenith in Richard Nixon's 1950 Senate victory against Helen Gahagan Douglas. Nixon supporters handed out thousands of Pink Sheet flyers that year comparing his opponent's voting record to that of socialist-leaning New York City Representative Vito Marcantonio. Marcantonio ran on the American Labor Party ticket and belonged to several groups that were regarded as red.
Douglas considered Nixon's actions thuggery, as did a number of other Americans in both parties. She called him as a young man in a dark shirt, which was an indirect allusion to the fascists the US had been fighting five years before. (Upon hearing her remark, Nixon displayed an odd unfamiliarity with human anatomy. Why, I'll castrate her! the future president said. He also described Douglas as pink right down to her underwear.)
SNIP...
In fact, one of the reasons Republicans really won in 2010 was because they ran a series of very effective ads around a so-called Seniors' Bill of Rights whose key proviso was a direct attack on socialist Obama's repeated attempts to negotiate entitlement cuts: No cuts to Medicare to pay for another program, the Republicans declared. Zero.
CONTINUED...
http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154175/why_obama%27s_the_least_socialistic_president_in_modern_history_%28and_that%27s_a_shame%29/?page=entire
My take, regarding Socialism: I prefer we move from the capitalist-winner-take-all-the-gold-and-all-the-losers-get-the-shaft model to a form of democratic socialism in which all people can enjoy private property, including ownership of corporations and businesses, homes and land. However, the ownership class -- the one-percent of one-percent -- would share in their take through taxes that fund social programs and cultural progress. Thus, it would behoove the United States to nationalize the banking, energy, health care and defense industries. Under President Obama, I doubt that will happen, which is too bad for the country and the People.
16 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Why Obama's the Least Socialistic President in Modern History (And That's a Shame) [View all]
Octafish
Feb 2012
OP
The Republicans seem to have won the argument on taxation of the rich. Few Americans now how
libinnyandia
Feb 2012
#1
A concerted, organized effort was made to keep America from following Social Democracies of Europe.
Octafish
Feb 2012
#3
Absolutely. My UMC pals all 'know' their ship will come in if they keep carrying water for the 1%.
Octafish
Feb 2012
#9
Thank you, Quantess. We need that FDR New Deal for the 21st century approach...
Octafish
Feb 2012
#15
Well, it's not that Obama can't be the one to change our entire system to a form of socialism...
Honeycombe8
Feb 2012
#13