Friday, August 10, 2012

Is Obama a Socialist 
or a Fascist?

Thomas Sowell explains why the president seeks scapegoats for all his failed policies

by Thomas Sowell, Ph.D.

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and he wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous – something Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely – and correctly – regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s great book, “Liberal Fascism,” cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced itself from fascism and its Nazi offshoot – and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling opponents with these pariahs.

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people – like themselves – need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, “We the People …”

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left and regardless of its disastrous consequences.

Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.


  1. Obama is a leftist, but he is using fascistic methods to do his will.

    To be fair to Obama, our state has been more or less fascist since racist president Woodrow Wilson's time.

    Modern-day socialists are smart enough to not seize the means of production. As Dr Sowell says, that would make them directly responsible, and who wants that?

    It's much easier to issue diktats from DC and stand outside the factory doors and shake down the owners as they leave for the day, and it all accomplishes the same goal: From each according to his means, and to each according to his need (and continued willingness to vote red.)

  2. "it all accomplishes the same goal: From each according to his means, and to each according to his need (and continued willingness to vote red)."

    Indeed! And that is precisely why I stoutly maintain there is no true difference between Marxism-Communism-Socialism-Fascism or any other form of centralized command and control -- including "Theocracy."

    ALL produce virtually identical oppressive results -- suppression and subjugation of the individual, elimination of liberty, and economic devastation for all but the higher ups.

    Tyranny is tyranny is tyranny. PERIOD!

    ~ FreeThinke

  3. Tyranny by different ideological names always ends up the same: destroying the individual and the individual's rights. In that respect, all tyranny is Leftist.

  4. Socialism IS fascism.

  5. He's just HORRIBLE. That moniker works enough for ME!

  6. Progressive Eruptions is a socialist self educed Orgasm.

  7. Fascinating how very little attention substantive material denigrating the president draws in this crucial election year!

    We're all so bored with Obama we can't be bothered to oppose him.

    I think it's all over already.

    BACK to the Boston Beguine!

    ~ FT



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.