Is McCain a socialist?

Politics International Politics
1

A common charge made against the Democrats, and particularly in this last presidential campaign, is that Democrats are socialists. In the debates held on this forum, Tigerman asserted that Obama is “basically a socialist.” Wikipedia offers the following definition for socialism:

To my knowledge, neither political candidates, or the parties to which they belong, advocate a system of government meeting the above definition. So I would like to ask Tigerman, or anyone else who holds the same view, to explain how Obama or the Democrat party in general advocates socialism.

I note that the charges of socialism became more frequent and pronounced after Joe the Plumber questioned the progressive tax system of the US. For those who don’t know, the US has had a progressive income tax system since 1913, meaning that the taxable rate increases as the taxable amount increases. Critics (like Joe the Plumber) believe this amounts to the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. And it does. That’s what progressive tax systems do. Some services, like defense, benefit all equally, whereas others, such as welfare programs like Medicaid and public housing projects, disproportionately benefit poorer citizens.

The rates have varied widely, but there is a low correlation between the rates and the majority party of the ruling government. The tax rate is highly dependent on external factors. For example, the upmost tax rate jumped from 7% in 1915 to 67% in 1917 once the US entered World War I. The upmost tax rate reached an interwar low of 24% in 1929, but spiked to 94% in 1944-45, during World War II. In an earlier thread, Tigerman asserted that Clinton’s tax increase from 31% to 39.6% was the largest increase in history. This is false. Far greater increases occured with the onset of the great wars.

Following World War II, the upmost tax rate did not fall below 70% until the demobilization of the military following the end of the Vietnam War. The upmost tax rate remained at 50% during the majority of Reagan’s presidency, but was reduced to 33% by the time he left office. The tax rate has remained in the 30s throughout the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations. Bush II’s tax cuts amounted to a 4.6% decrease from the highest rate under Clinton. For further information, here is the Wiki article, complete with several useful charts and graphs.

A progressive tax system does not amount to collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, so I submit that neither of the two major American parties -which both support the progressive tax system- adhere to socialism. On the other hand, both parties do support taxing wealthier citizens and using that money to benefit those who pay less or nothing into the system. It’s tempting to call this a liberal or left wing system, but again, with the exception of certain party members, the major parties both support it.

So where does McCain stand on the issue? He supports the redistribution of wealth that follows from the progressive tax system. On October 12, 2000, a Michigan State University student asks McCain the following question:

Senator McCain answered:

Unless McCain’s position changed, I submit that his position on the American tax system, and thus the redistribution of wealth that follows from it, is fundamentally the same as President-elect Obama’s. If favoring the redistribution of wealth makes Obama a socialist, aren’t McCain and every Republican president who has served over the past hundred years also socialists?

2

Why do you even bother?

I understand that Alabama is bit more right-wing than moderately “socialist” Arkansas, but still…why deal with such Neanderthals? Is there any point? No one is ever going to be convinced of anything. Most of the people I knew back in highschool are exactly the same as they were back in highschool. Unthinking knee-jerks. There is no point in talking to them about anything.

So again…why do you bother?

3

Nationalising the finance sector is about as socialist as it gets! :laughing:

Gao, the term was thrown out there to hook the deep fear that term has in the electorates’ heart since the cold war and earlier. Probably back to America’s first terrorists, the anarchists (people often forget how popular anarchy was at the turn of the last century). In places like Australia they would never charge another politician with being a socialist simply because it doesn’t have the same negative resonance.

HG

4

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]A common charge made against the Democrats, and particularly in this last presidential campaign, is that Democrats are socialists. In the debates held on this forum, Tigerman asserted that Obama is “basically a socialist.” Wikipedia offers the following definition for socialism:

To my knowledge, neither political candidates, or the parties to which they belong, advocate a system of government meeting the above definition. So I would like to ask Tigerman, or anyone else who holds the same view, to explain how Obama or the Democrat party in general advocates socialism.[/quote]
America is perhaps half socialist; not quite like Sweden. But I would say that one party is closer to socialism than the other simply by virtue of wanting to raise taxes not only on the highest (and middle) brackets. The only recent Democrat I know that didn’t do this was Kennedy, whom I respect for that, and who I believe rendered the 60s a relatively prosperous time.
It’s perhaps educational to go president by president. Reagan lowered Carter’s upper income tax from 69% eventually to a low of 28%, which low hasn’t been seen since, which ushered prosperity during the 80s. Bush I, in a bid to get along with the Democrat Congress, raised taxes; and Clinton raised them again to 39.5%. Bush II lowered them to 35%, which means he’s about as good as his father. In all honesty, Bush and Clinton are much closer to Reagan’s rates than any of them are to Carter’s.
I personally think the flat rate should be experimented with. The rich people are productive. They have much money to invest; they risk it by starting new companies, which provide all kinds of new jobs – from managerial to janatorial. They are the engines of society’s plane.
If you burden them too much, they begin giving up and taking fewer risks as their spirits become doused, and the whole plane begins going down. Not only that, if you burden them too much, fewer people attempt to become rich, which means fewer really productive members of society starting new companies and providing new jobs. If you bring their rate down to 20%, however, imagine the vibrancy that would bring to society.

 There may be attempts for Democrat government to take control of banks, which has already started under a Republican banner, unfortunately.  I imagine Obama will only go stronger in that direction, and not weaker.  After all, it's the Democrats who, I've heard lately, inveigh against the free market and lax policies.  State control of companies is certainly the "cure" for that, which is closer to socialism.  It seems the times are ripe for a socialism invasion right now.  I think that might be instructive because many people either forgot or don't really know what the Carter era is all about.  Obama should give us a taste of Leftist policies so we can get familiar with them again, and perhaps usher in another conservative majority in two or four years, like what happened with Clinton.  The Republican Party needs to be cleansed starting with McCain.  It feels soooo good to be rid of him.  I hated trying to pretend I supported him, and that for a possible eight years.  
 Bush really isn't that conservative.  He's a mixed bag on the economy.  He lowered taxes, but encourage profligate spending.  He's a lot like Nixon, wanting to get along with Democrats, working with them and allowing their pet projects.  The Democrats hated Nixon, though; and they seem very vehement towards Bush as well.  Reagan didn't work with Democrats.  He was pretty straightfoward conservative, but I don't remember too much Democrat hatred for him.  It's interesting to note the irony.
5

Yep. It’s called “red-baiting”, a tactic used to spread fear.

In the minds of many Americans, “socialism” = “communism” = “Soviet-style dictatorship”. When I was a kid, I thought this too. I remember when Mitterand was elected in France: he was a socialist, and I thought it meant that France would become an oppressive dictatorship like Soviet Russia.

So without any basis whatsoever, the McCain people, “Obama is a socialist!” to scare people into voting for McCain. Thankfully, it didn’t work. Americans as a whole have wised up.

6

Yep. It’s called “red-baiting”, a tactic used to spread fear.

In the minds of many Americans, “socialism” = “communism” = “Soviet-style dictatorship”. When I was a kid, I thought this too. I remember when Mitterand was elected in France: he was a socialist, and I thought it meant that France would become an oppressive dictatorship like Soviet Russia.[/quote]
Naw, there are some four of five different kinds of socialism. Communism is the most extreme. Hayek’s extremely influential book The Road to Serfdom, written in the 40s, warns that when socialism starts in a democracy, the tendency is for undue government regulation and greater authoritarianism to sustain it down the road, which happened during Hitler’s leftist, socialist regime.

7

[quote=“jotham”]
America is perhaps half socialist; not quite like Sweden. [/quote]

You clearly don’t understand what “socialism” means. Try Gao’s definition as a good starting point.

[quote]I personally think the flat rate should be experimented with.  The rich people are productive.  They have much money to invest; they risk it by starting new companies, which provide all kinds of new jobs -- from managerial to janatorial.  They are the engines of society's plane. [/quote]

Not necessarily true. Rich people often invest money in unproductive activities (especially property), in socially undesirable activities, or invest it overseas. New companies are mostly started by people who are not yet rich, even if the business might make them rich in the future.
I prefer to think of the workers as the true productive force in society.

 [quote]If you burden them too much, they begin giving up and taking fewer risks as their spirits become doused, and the whole plane begins going down.  Not only that, if you burden them too much, fewer people attempt to become rich, which means fewer really productive members of society starting new companies and providing new jobs.  If you bring their rate down to 20%, however, imagine the vibrancy that would bring to society.[/quote]

So how have high-tax, “socialist” Northern European countries ended up among the richest in the world? Their “plane” is still flying high despite higher taxes on the rich (and indeed the middle class).
If you taxed the rich at 20%-you would either have to make the shortfall in revenue up taxing lower earners more, or cut government spending on health, social welfare, education etc. Both would have serious negative economic consequences.

8

I should add that “socialist” European countries also score highly on indices of democracy-“socialist” Sweden is in fact in first place on the Economist Democracy index, with the “half-socialist” United States languishing in 17th place.
So clearly no correlation between “socialism” (when defined as market economies with high tax rates and strong welfare provision) and authoritarianism.

9

As far as McCain is concerned, that’s a moot point. He’s 72 years old and will never run for President again. Willing to bet Obama will be in for two terms (unless he does something very stupid) and may even become one of the most popular presidents.

The real question should be: What’s Obama going to do to/for the economy? Which isn’t just a US centric question, but pretty much a global one. At the end of the day, the US electorate has chosen for six and a half billion people, not 300 million, because what he’s going to do in the next few years will affect us all.

10

:astonished:

Hitler was a fascist, on the far right of the political spectrum. He fiercely opposed communism and socialism. Sure, he used the term “Socialist” in the name of his party, but then again, East Germany called itself the “Democratic” Republic of Germany.

11

[quote=“Mawvellous”]
Not necessarily true. Rich people often invest money in unproductive activities (especially property), in socially undesirable activities, or invest it overseas.[/quote]
That may be true, but that doesn’t render untrue the fact that they often invest money in productive activities, and more often than in “unproductive” activities.

This is very true also. And like I said before, onerous tax burdens will prevent many of these kinds of people from spanning that bridge. It just doesn’t become worth it. At a 20% rate, more people will jump on the bandwagon, which means a plethora of new productive companies and jobs.

Indeed, but most of them can’t employ themselves. They often need an employer, (one who is richer than them), to provide them a goal and project to be productive on.

Sweden was the second- or third-richest country in the world in 1950 after fifty years of free markets. You have to look at where they have fallen from. In 1950, they started implementing socialism, which came to a head in the 70s. They had a really great fall around 1993, dipped down from 3rd to about 15th-20th incomewise, from which they’ve never recovered. After their fall, they began free-market reforms again, privatising many comanies and deregulating important sectors of the economy. Most Swedish parties also practice Friedman’s monetarism to control inflation. Even then, their economy isn’t as great as it looks on their reports employing budgeting chicanery – such as calling the unemployed early retirees or long-term sick leave, etc. There was a recent political controversy in Sweden about the employment figures and the real state of the economy. As for the tax rates, they aren’t really progressive. They aren’t for the sake of an egalitarian, socialist society – just for revenue. So tax rates are equally high for all. Had Sweden continued in lower taxes since 1950, she would no doubt be the best economy in the world.
Perhaps I was wrong to name Sweden as socialist country. That was most true in the 70s, but perhaps Germany or France is more so today.
The Sweden Myth
Sweden owes a debt to Friedman

12

I should add that “socialist” European countries also score highly on indices of democracy-“socialist” Sweden is in fact in first place on the Economist Democracy index, with the “half-socialist” United States languishing in 17th place.
So clearly no correlation between “socialism” (when defined as market economies with high tax rates and strong welfare provision) and authoritarianism.[/quote]
Well Sweden is moving away from their socialist past, which deregulation and privatization itself moves toward economic freedom. Again, I was wrong to use Sweden as the perfect example.
And as I said before, there are four or five kinds of socialism. Hayek noted that when a country starts in socialism, parliamentary or congressional procedures, which are democratic, are thought to be too slow or ineffective at implementing it, and so important economic decisions get sidestepped into committees with fewer people in order to make progress, which is one way Hitler subtly gained power.

13

He fiercely opposed communism, a form of socialism he didn’t care for. But he obviously didn’t oppose socialism. He just thought his form of socialism was the better one. (After all, he took control of state’s means of production and distribution. Isn’t that the definition of “socialism”?)
World War II was started by two leftists fighting each other. Politicians put spin on it later to suggest it was right versus left. There’s nothing rightist about Hitler. He was environmental, advocated abortion, euthanism, animal rights, gun control, anti-smoking, etc. He was the perfect Leftist of the times. Leftists worldwide, including those in the US, were also highly racist at that time as well – towards blacks and Jews (and Asians).

This was no trick. He was quite socialist. Everyone in Germany was. That wasn’t a point of debate. The debate was how to best implement socialism that had already existed in Germany, and certainly would during the whole of Adolf’s reign.

14

[quote=“jotham”][quote=“Mawvellous”]
Not necessarily true. Rich people often invest money in unproductive activities (especially property), in socially undesirable activities, or invest it overseas.[/quote]
That may be true, but that doesn’t render untrue the fact that they often invest money in productive activities, and more often than in “unproductive” activities.

This is very true also. And like I said before, onerous tax burdens will prevent many of these kinds of people from spanning that bridge. It just doesn’t become worth it. At a 20% rate, more people will jump on the bandwagon, which means a plethora of new productive companies and jobs.

Indeed, but most of them can’t employ themselves. They often need an employer, (one who is richer than them), to provide them a goal and project to be productive on.

Sweden was the second- or third-richest country in the world in 1950 after fifty years of free markets. You have to look at where they have fallen from. In 1950, they started implementing socialism, which came to a head in the 70s. They had a really great fall around 1993, dipped down from 3rd to about 15th-20th incomewise, from which they’ve never recovered. After their fall, they began free-market reforms again, privatising many comanies and deregulating important sectors of the economy. Most Swedish parties also practice Friedman’s monetarism to control inflation. Even then, their economy isn’t as great as it looks on their reports employing budgeting chicanery – such as calling the unemployed early retirees or long-term sick leave, etc. There was a recent political controversy in Sweden about the employment figures and the real state of the economy. As for the tax rates, they aren’t really progressive. They aren’t for the sake of an egalitarian, socialist society – just for revenue. So tax rates are equally high for all. Had Sweden continued in lower taxes since 1950, she would no doubt be the best economy in the world.
Perhaps I was wrong to name Sweden as socialist country. That was most true in the 70s, but perhaps Germany or France is more so today.
The Sweden Myth
Sweden owes a debt to Friedman[/quote]

I think there are two problems with your argument:

  1. You are using the term socialism incorrectly. This is the Oxford English definition:

Based on this definition no European country is socialist. It is true that in Western Europe social democrats have been very influential, there stated aim initially was to achieve socialism through gradual reform. However they never achieved this goal, and over time moved towards the centre. Tony Blair for example became leader of a political party that originally advocated socialism, but never came close to achieving it when they were in office.

  1. You are confusing a strong government role with socialism, and ignoring the importance of government in economic development. For example you might have argued that the key role the state played in the economic development of Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore was “socialist”, but you would be ignoring the fact that such economic development would have been impossible through the “free market” ideology you advocate. Capitalism needs the state, without the state there is no capitalism. Higher taxes can enable the government to play enhanced roles in areas such as education, health-care, and social welfare, and thus contribute positively to economic development.
15

[quote=“Mawvellous”]
I think there are two problems with your argument:

  1. You are using the term socialism incorrectly. This is the Oxford English definition:

Based on this definition no European country is socialist.[/quote]
Oh come on, based on your interpretation of this definition, no country in the world would be socialist. “Community” is just code word for activist government. These kinds of governments always say it’s for the good of the people, or the “community.” It’s just rhetoric.

So Hayek may have been right. In order to fully implement socialism would require erosion of democracy. Just when that juncture arrives, leaders take a step back and allow democratic (which means free-market) processes to trump pure socialist idealism. We’ve learned from the Hitler experience.

No doubt, dictators can achieve great things. Socialist Hitler built the German autobahn, whose system is still employed. Stalin made the trains run on time. The Chinese Communists have done marvelous things concerning economic development. But that doesn’t mean that economic progress sufficiently or significantly raised the living standards of ordinary denizens compared to the denizens of more democratic nations. Japan was “forced” to be free in 1945. Compare her economic status today (third-largest economy?) with that of Korea and Taiwan, who became democratic only in 1981 and 1989 respectively. Enough said there.

Yes, there must be a state. That isn’t the controversy. The controversy is how big and intrusive is the state? I believe the healthy attitude is captured by this famous quote: “The state is a necessary evil.”

16

He fiercely opposed communism, a form of socialism he didn’t care for. But he obviously didn’t oppose socialism. He just thought his form of socialism was the better one. (After all, he took control of state’s means of production and distribution. Isn’t that the definition of “socialism”?)
World War II was started by two leftists fighting each other. Politicians put spin on it later to suggest it was right versus left. There’s nothing rightist about Hitler.[/quote]
Except maybe his anti-Semitism and ideas of racial superiority, his suppression of freedoms, suppression of democracy and implementation of dictatorship, suppression of dissidents, use of terror as a means of control, his initiations of war, and, last but not least, the fact that he killed millions of innocents. These are NOT liberal values. These are right-wing extremist values.

17

Except maybe his anti-Semitism and ideas of racial superiority, his suppression of freedoms, suppression of democracy and implementation of dictatorship, suppression of dissidents, use of terror as a means of control, his initiations of war, and, last but not least, the fact that he killed millions of innocents. These are NOT liberal values. These are right-wing extremist values.[/quote]
They may not be values of prominent European or American leftists today (largely due to the successful influence of Republicans and conservatives in the past), but many of these values, like racial superiority, were decisively historical values of the Left; and many of the values on your list still are today, depending on how left you’re willing to go.
Be careful about using the term “liberal.” In American parlance, it means leftist. For Europeans, it means laizzez-faire, which is conservative in America.

18

Except maybe his anti-Semitism and ideas of racial superiority, his suppression of freedoms, suppression of democracy and implementation of dictatorship, suppression of dissidents, use of terror as a means of control, his initiations of war, and, last but not least, the fact that he killed millions of innocents. These are NOT liberal values. These are right-wing extremist values.[/quote]
They may not be values of prominent European or American leftists today (largely due to the successful influence of Republicans and conservatives in the past), but many of these values, like racial superiority, were decisively historical values of the Left; and many of the values on your list still are today, depending on how left you’re willing to go.
Be careful about using the term “liberal.” In American parlance, it means leftist. For Europeans, it means laizzez-faire, which is conservative in America.[/quote]

I define “liberal” as pro-freedom, pro-democracy, pro-equal rights, pro-fairness etc.; and “right” as its antithesis. Liberals want to make the world a better place for all; conservatives want to make it better for a privileged few.

19

[quote=“jotham”]
Oh come on, based on your interpretation of this definition, no country in the world would be socialist. “Community” is just code word for activist government. These kinds of governments always say it’s for the good of the people, or the “community.” It’s just rhetoric.[/quote]

I don’t understand what your point is. Anyway, I was simply encouraging you to use terms according to their established definitions. If “socialism” means whatever you feel like, then the term uses all usefulness as a starting point for discussion.

They didn’t implement socialism because it was impossible to arrive at it through the institutions of the capitalist state. What they did manage to implement was some kind of welfare state, this was initially supported by business interests (for example the UK “post-war consensus”), but over time demands for reform (in particular privatisation) and retrenchment grew.

Could it be that Taiwan and Korea (as ex-Japanese colonies) were way behind Japan in terms of economic development in 1945? You should also note that in “free” Japan the government played a leading role in post-War economic development. In fact the state corporatist model was of far greater importance in Japan than in Taiwan, where at least in the early stages the government was obsessed with retaking the mainland, and the economy was dominated by small and medium-sized privately owned businesses (this remains the case today). This is not to say that the government’s role in Taiwan’s economic development should be ignored, particularly after the KMT realised that a prosperous “free China” would be to their advantage.

I feel you are blinded by free-market ideology. Once you take the time to do some research on economic development, it will become clear that the state always plays a critical role.

20

Calling Obama a socialist was just the usual low brow tactics to attract uneducated ignorant rednecks. First they tried to call him a muslim, then a racist, then they tried the old ‘he’s a socialist trick’. See how far that got them… fortunately uneducated hick rednecks and the ultrarich just don’t contribute enough votes. They don’t even know what a socialist is in the US, it’s just some word that got connected with America’s bogeyman, communism. There’s always another name to call…what’s next I wonder.