-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The majority of Democrats and liberals who favor socialism notwithstanding, America remains a conservative nation. Or so Edward Glaeser concludes in an op-ed in today’s Boston Globe.
Glaeser delves into the differences in attitudes toward socialism and redistribution between the US and European nations, and finds that the causes can’t be explained by underlying economic realities. We have income inequality and a lack of social mobility, so why don’t we have the same political will for redistribution and welfare?
Glaeser thinks it has to do with America’s ethnic heterogeneity and political institutions. Americans are more stingy with welfare because its recipients often have unfamiliar race or ethnicity, and our politics are much more winner-takes-all so that the poor minority cannot vote themselves more redistributed benefits.
This leads to his conclusion:
A year ago, I wondered if the Obama victory signaled the declining significance of race and an American lurch to the left. But countries change slowly. In 2009, a Pew survey found that only 29 percent of Americans think that success comes from forces outside their control, as opposed to 52 percent of French respondents and 66 percent of Germans. No one should be surprised that American voters, even in Massachusetts, pushed back against a progressive agenda. By world standards, we are a conservative nation. Those who would change that fact need to dig in for a long fight.
Of course, much of the left’s recent electoral difficulties are a product of anti-incumbent sentiment attributable to the terrible economic conditions.
But the point about America’s attitudes towards progressive governance stands. Socialism is a real form of government that Europe embraces. US left-wing politicians, however, avoid being labeled anything that sounds like socialism, even if they favor the same policies that the European left does.
View all comments (44) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/05/socialism-in-america
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- A President Loses His Power
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill| 2.5.10 @ 5:04PM
We've been a socialist Nation over a hundred or more years. We are taxed in order to pay for a common defense, we provide healthcare and social services for our elderly, we collectively pay for a police force, a fire department and schools. Our highways are built and maintained with government provided labor. When you pay your bills, are you going to pay $8.00 to send them by UPS or FedEx? No. You send them by the U.S. mail for 44 cents. Our waterways are protected by the U.S. Coast Guard. Our welfare system keeps our country from looking like the streets of Calcutta, although many republicans, I'm sure would prefer it that way. If you want to privatize any of these, next time you need a fire engine or policeman, you better have your credit card ready.
LiveFreeOrDie| 2.5.10 @ 5:52PM
Total nonsense. You couldn't be more wrong. Taxation does not equal socialism. Next time grab a dictionary before you display your ignorance in a forum. (Hint: Look up the word socialism)
TrickleUpPolitics| 2.5.10 @ 9:32PM
Our Constitution lists as one of the federal government's LIMITED powers the duty to provide for a common defense. There are certain things our federal and state governments are supposed to do: protect the general welfare. That is why we pay taxes to provide police, firefighters, schools, roads, sanitation. The US Post Office is a private corporation with government subsidies.
You display your ignorance when you accuse Republicans, a word you do not have the courtesy to capitalize properly, of wanting our country to "look like the streets of Calcutta". No, that's bad for property values. All kidding aside, Republicans believe in limited government and enlarged personal freedom. You don't seem to know the difference between freedom and slavery.
Margie| 2.5.10 @ 10:11PM
Great post. Thanks for stating it so well.
Ken in People's Republic of MD| 2.8.10 @ 8:39AM
Actually, no, the Post Office is not a private corporation with government subsidies. It is a quasi government agency that by its bylaws does not receive government money.
The office of Postmaster General used to be a cabinet post, it is no longer.
It is a fully self sufficient agency selling its own goods and services. It does take loans from the government, but it sets its own rates. The problem is that by its mandate, it is a money loser. Too many things it does prevents it from showing a profit. If a private, profit minded company were to take over P.O. duties, many things we take for granted would disappear(365 day express mail, Saturday delivery, low stamp price-the price of a US stamp is the lowest in the world, many nations in the EU charge over a dollar to mail a letter, Asia not quite as high, but still more than the USPS and not as efficient- etc.)
The Post Office has myriad problems, but all in all, it does its job.
Tex Expatriate| 2.6.10 @ 5:23PM
Get hold of a history book and a dictionary of philosophy. You don't know what socialism is.
S.L. Toddard| 2.5.10 @ 5:26PM
"Glaeser thinks it has to do with America's ethnic heterogeneity and political institutions. Americans are more stingy with welfare because its recipients often have unfamiliar race or ethnicity"
So, according to Glaeser, America would be more socialist if (white) Americans weren't so evil/racist. What a repugnant argument.
Pete| 2.5.10 @ 5:28PM
"Of course, much of the left's recent electoral difficulties are a product of anti-incumbent sentiment attributable to the terrible economic conditions. "
I disagree. I think it has much more to do with the far left, progressive agenda being stuffed down our throats.
Deborah D | 2.5.10 @ 5:40PM
Pete -- I couldn't agree with you more. Just look at Michigan -- it is a preview of Obama's whacko policies. This will be our future. Americans are waking up to the reality of what this current administration is proposing. I think Paul Revere is hollering and many are starting to hear him. Thank God.
Copyleft| 2.8.10 @ 2:13PM
WHAT progressive agenda? Obama's been as disappointingly subservient to Wall Street as Clinton, both Bushes, and Reagan ever were.
If you think Obama's plans are even _liberal_, let alone "socialist"... yikes, that some profound ignorance of reality you're showing. He's another special-interest tool with a good speechwriter, nothing more.
Franklin| 2.5.10 @ 7:35PM
"... I am committed against every thing which, in my judgement, may weaken endanger, or destroy [the Constitution] ... and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am comitted against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the Government itself ..." Daniel Webster
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
This makes me weep for what we have lost in this country. Please, God, let's fight to get it back.
Libertarians of LSU | 2.5.10 @ 8:17PM
Socialism (per Webster's Dictionary)
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
You cannot have a government without taxes, and you cannot have a huge government without huge taxes.
Accordingly, the bigger the government, the higher the taxes. This means that taxes do equal socialism when taken to these extremes.
Benjamin Franklin said that the American people would never be crazy enough to accept 10% tax rates, because that would be socialism (paraphrased, as can't remember exact quote).
Darren | 2.5.10 @ 10:02PM
According to Norman Thomas liberals are socialists:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
This article reminds me of one written by my wife, "Socialism In Guyana". http://theinternationalliberta.....uyana.html
Liberal No More| 2.5.10 @ 10:17PM
Democrat = Liberal = Socialist =Marxist = Commie.
It's just a matter of degree.
Count LF Chodkiewicz Chudzikie| 2.8.10 @ 1:52PM
Oh, come on! This is like people who say Jesus and the original disciples were Communists! Democrat refers to whether people have rights. Liberal refers to open to other arguments. Socialist means the means of production, major industries, and large land is owned by the government, but private property does exist with restrictions to size and type of business. Communist refers to someone who does not believe in private property and although originally does not believe in government, has been turned around into the opposite by Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tun to mean no rights except limited within a small group called the "leadership cadres" of a single party, the Communists. I don`t believe for one minute someone who is a liberal becomes something else, people like Mayor Ed Koch of New York simply moved from left-center liberal to right-center liberal. Everyone seems to forget the LIBERAL PARTY in England and the NATIONAL LIBERAL PARTY in Germany were CONSERVATIVE PARTIES THAT WERE PRO-BUSINESS as opposed to the "right-Agricultural gentry parties", also called CONSERVATIVE that favoured GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR UNPROFITABLE LANDED ESTATES AND ELECTION DISTRICTS BASED ON THE LANDLORDs ESTATES under representing not just the working classes, but the middle and upper class merchant classes. In Italy the CONSERVATIVES favour GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZING PRIVATE INDUSTRIES, I mean, DO YOU REMEMBER THE "CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS" under either Bush abolishing the US Department of Education? It is this kind of mindless comment that keeps Congress from becoming CONSERVATIVE.
martin j smith| 2.6.10 @ 8:35AM
Here is what needs to be done. Republicans should differentiate themselves from their opposition by their support of the follwoing ideas: Believe in the consititution and the Bill of rights,free market capitalism,American exceptionalism, and a strong national defence. Make America the Beacon of Liberty it once was and should be.
Oldefarte| 2.6.10 @ 12:33PM
America is a CAPITALISTIC [not a SOCIALIALISTIC] country, period. It is the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who are the latter, while the MODERATE DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS who are the former. America elected Obama, thinking that he was a partially moderate Democrat that, if elected, would result in America ridding itself of its self-imposed guilt over the pre-Civil War slavery issue. America blinded itself [with the help of the brainwashing coming from the MSM] to Obama's socialistic tendencies and previous associations thoroughout his entire life; and are now in shock and denial over the latter after his coming out of his [political] philosophical closet as a fire-eating liberal. 'No, that just cannot be, he's such a happy-go-lucky kind of guy, with a beaming smile and a attractive family' America now says, while shaking its head in disbelief. The only question now is will America have the sense and fortitute to do something about it in November and in 2012??????
blah blah| 5.13.10 @ 11:54AM
Wow! You are stupid.
Liberal Reader| 2.6.10 @ 1:09PM
The idea that Americans resist "sociliasm" because of their heterogeneity seems simplistic.
It is true that ethnically more homogenous societies -- like those in Scandinavia -- have been more amenable to socialism in some form or another.
And it is VERY TRUE that racial bigotry and anxiety and conflict in this country are very convenient to the upper 2% percent of the economy -- those who stand the most to lose when middle class people demand some of the rewards of rising productivity.
Conservatives are very good at directing middle class frustrations from the economic elite that has done quite well in the past few decades to the government or the press (or Hollywood, or universities).
It never seems to occur to many people that the fantastic gains in wealth by the wealthiest have been indeed the result of a concerted political program.
Those who earn 1,000 times what the average middle class person does do not work 1,000 times harder, nor are they 1,000 times luckier, nor are they 1,000 times more beloved by God. They are privileged by LAWS enacted to protect them and their wealth.
IN THIS COUNTRY WE HAVE SOCIALISM. Our socialism ensures that the wealthiest people do not LOSE when they risk big, provided their risks are big enough, callous enough, foolish enough, selfish enough, pointless enough, greedy enough, and aggressive enough. And when they win, they win big.
If you are in the middle class, you've seen your earnings stagnate since 1980. You've seen the cost of houses, education, and medical care skyrocket at many times the rate of normal inflation. You've had to borrow more and work more to maintain a modest middle class existence.
Why?
Well.... Conservatives will tell you it's all Whoopi Goldberg's fault; or it's because oil companies can't drill off the beautiful coast of Florida. Or because Ted Kennedy drank too much. Or gay people. Or black people, on welfare and having babies "like stray animals."
If you believe them, you're a damned fool and should learn how to ask for and expect more!
The economy should work for the middle class, not the other way around. If that's socialism, then I'm a socialist. If that's socialism, this whole damn country was socialist in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, when the middle class grew more than it ever had anywhere at anytime.
Mega-dittoes, America! And have a nice day!
Oldefarte| 2.6.10 @ 3:06PM
The above is typical of the moronic thought processes of the imbicilic mindset. Individuals become wealthy for usually one simple reason....THEY ARE INTELLIGENT/EDUCATED and SMART [and college graduates earn double/triple the income that non-college graduates do]. It's not that the system works for those more intelligent, it's because they make the system work for them due to their intellect. In other words, non-intelligent individuals are STUPID, get it? Intelligent people actually work less [on average] than others, because they WORK SMARTER [or more efficiently] due to their intelligence. The so-called 'middle class' that Barry/Democrats refer to are actually the uneducated class [high school dropouts,etc] that have historically depended upon manufacturing jobs [and their higher paychecks], and now are faced with computers taking over most of these jobs through automation [the grocery store checkout clerk is the last of a dying breed]. These uneducated individuals are incapable of obtaining a replacement job [after being displaced by computers/automation at some manufacturing factory], and thereafter have to resort to government welfare payments to financially survive. The world has passed them by due to technological advances, and these uneducated individuals then scream [or Obama does it for them] about their rights to governmental welfare [ie healthcare, paid for by taxpayers]. If they would have worked hard and studied in school, gone to college,etc; their lives would not now be so miserable!!!!!
Copyleft| 2.8.10 @ 3:01PM
If his thought processes are so "moronic," why is it that Liberal Reader can write so much more clearly and rationally than you?
basegirl | 4.3.10 @ 3:35PM
well said, even if some thought you were not being "rational". I say,,,Its hard to remain rational when your eyes are wide open to all that is happening to this country and our constitution. Those of us that are paying attention and work our butts off , are tired of watching while others are living & raising multi generations with their hands out,. Then vote in someone they think will GIVE them more.
Anyway, this is a scary time, Oldefarte said it well, he said it right, The awareness is growing, and we can all thank our founding fathers for election day will soon be here, I hope we make them proud..& Hope the damage can be be slowed down a bit, and later reversed.
Nick| 2.6.10 @ 2:00PM
Marxist Reader,
Did you finish the catechism lesson I gave you on why Christ forbade divorce?
Also, socialism is a failed political system, and an evil one. Pope Leo XIII said one cannot be, at the same time, a socialist and a Catholic.
blah blah| 5.13.10 @ 12:02PM
Hey Catholic, don't you have some little boys to touch?
Liberal Reader| 2.6.10 @ 3:30PM
I think I've said all I have to say on this matter. Best of luck.
Nick| 2.6.10 @ 3:49PM
Which matter?
Socialism or Catholic teaching?
Troll Watch| 2.6.10 @ 6:36PM
The Little Reader doesn't use so much profanity since he pretended to discoverer religion. He is very unhinged today and yet not even a hint of his usual F bomb. The next several years will really try him and I am worried that he may do harm to himself or others. He needs to get off these political web sites and take up a suitable hobby, belly dancing or knitting or something like that. I have seen the claims that liberalism is really a mental disease and have always been skeptical. Our trolls make me wonder whether I should be more open minded.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.10 @ 8:22AM
I have always viewed America as a free market economy that has become wealthy enough to spread pretty generous safety nets for the unfortunates among us.
Historically, most tax paying people I know sorta grumble, but finally say "ahhhh heck, what the hey...a pretty good country. I'll pay for it."
That has changed. These same tax-payers are now realizing that government 'crats are really crummy business people, really "challenged" in economic theory and practice, and bound and determined to take over our personal decision making.
Now we are saying, "I ain't gonna' pay for my own chains."
Very simple really.
martin j smith| 2.7.10 @ 8:32AM
The United States never had a strong Socialism Movement as occurred in Europe ( Including Russia Aka USSof R ). Inspite of the "progressive movements" our nation grew under the backbone of private industry and small business. That is where the money comes from in order to afford stuff like social security,medicare,medicaid,public assistance etc.
Now I am not totally against these services, yet at the same time one ponder how to be able to afford them. The funny thing is our Socialist in Chief ( or is it Bolshevik--his words ) either forgets that by over taxing you lose lose revenue and so these dear programs fail. Or, and this is another line of thinking he purposely wants our country to fail and fall apart--while he laughs all the way to the bank ( which he owns ). I can go either way on that one. In any event it is my view that majority of American voters by far DO NOT WANT A SOCIALIST STYLE GOVERNMENT. It "true believers"( activists ) the "gimmeez" ( they want freebeez ) these are primary ones who do not give a damn about this country --yes many are Un-American. So--in 2010 & 2012 just vote NO.
That is what this election will be all about. DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT SITTING IT OUT 111111111
Margie| 2.7.10 @ 4:17PM
Hear, hear!
Meaning
A shout of acclamation or agreement.
Origin
Originated in the British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of 'hear him, hear him'. It is still often heard there although it is often used ironically these days.
Tenn Slim| 2.8.10 @ 9:13AM
Opine
bt
By world standards, we are a conservative nation. Those who would change that fact need to dig in for a long fight.
bt
The 19th century Anarchists, the Early 20th Progressive, the Mid 20th LIberals, and now again the 21st Century PRODEMLIBs are still "fighting the Good Fight". Folks, the fight will never end. The current stage battle is only our current Valley Forge. The end of this tunnel is 2010. We will prevail.
BUT never doubt for one moment. The Leftist, in whateve guise they choose, will not go quietly into the Night. USSR Kruchev, said it correctly, The USA Will never be conquered from without, only from within, as he pounded his shoe on the UN Desk in frustration. He lost in 1989 and again in the 1990s as will the USA Left in 2010.
end
Semper Fi
Chasmore| 2.8.10 @ 11:40PM
Socialism and capitalism are like driving in Europe or driving in America, there just is no compromise. They are two distinctly different systems. Under capatilism I have property rights but under the law of love I need to also me compassionate. There are defnite instructions in the Bible about sharing our wealth and it is not, and I repeat not on the same order as Socialism even though Socialism bases some of it demands on biblical teaching. Neither can I say we can have property rights and not abuse those rights because we can. Nevertheless it is only the capatalist system that creates wealth and can lift the world out of it poverty. I will stop with this though a lot more can be said. Capitalism is the only system that leaves the individual free to innovate.
Bart Rice| 2.9.10 @ 2:15AM
It always aggravates to hear about "redistribution of wealth," because implicit in the phrase is the assumption that wealth is a zero-sum game. It is not, as demonstrated by recent losses of wealth due to stock market decline. The maddening thing to socialists is that in a prosperous economy that lifts the well-being of almost all, some people will get filthy rich. To the socialist, this is unfair and their wealth should be redistributed. But to do so eventually ends the prosperity, and the people that the socialist claims to want to help are those that are hurt the most. Especially in an age where there is a tremendous oversupply of unskilled labor, trickle-down is the only thing that works.
Tenn Slim| 2.9.10 @ 9:39AM
Capitalism is the only system that leaves the individual free..
Free to fail, to succeed, to live without PC Police, EPA unreasonable regs, etal
end
Semper Fi
Pingback| 2.13.10 @ 3:16PM
The Rewards and Risks Of Personal Freedom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: