Obama a Socialist?

I have already admitted in this space that I am a semanticist; I am accused frequently of being too particular about word choice. Blame it on the poet in me (or on my Mother’s insistence on correct English.) I try to say what I mean and mean what I say; I expect the same of others. Needless to say, I am often disappointed.

Sometimes people purposely misuse a word or twist its meaning to fit their agenda. This tactic is so common in politics that it hardly needs an example, but I will share two that made headlines a few years ago. George W. Bush flew to an aircraft carrier returning from the Iraq war zone and stood in front of a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.” The men and women on board knew the banner signified that their “mission” had been accomplished.

The liberal press, eager to find any trace of egg on the face of their arch enemy, tried to paint President Bush the fool for suggesting that the war in Iraq had been won. The ploy was so disingenuous as to be mindless if only one remembered the words of the President when he initiated the war. He clearly said that the conflict would not be over in weeks or months or years, perhaps not for generations. He understood the nature of the Islamic extremists we are fighting. They have a very long view of history; their battle did not start in this generation, nor do they expect to win in this generation.

Perhaps more damning was the mantra, “Bush lied; people died,” which was heard incessantly from opponents to the war in Iraq referring to his claim that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Even small children know what a lie is. President Bush, along with the leaders of several other countries, the intelligence community and half the world’s population (think Kurdish rebels) “knew” Sadam had WMD. Calling the President a liar in this instance was worse than disingenuous; it was malicious.

George W. Bush was too much of a gentleman to rebut every ridiculous thing his political enemies said. He was willing to let history be the judge of his actions. This was painful for some of us who watched him take flaming arrows from the press day after day, but in retrospect, I think I can see the ultimate wisdom in his behavior. Barak Obama, in contrast, spends a great deal of energy responding to criticism and has begun to sound like a whiney child.

President Obama has been labeled a socialist. Communism, a radicalized form of socialism, has been embraced by a significant number of the people with whom he chooses to surround himself. His main accomplishments (taking over commerce and the health care delivery system) are deemed socialistic by the right, though some Socialists disagree. Yet the President and his supporters in the press claim he is being unfairly painted with a negative stereotype.

Some ask why it is such a big deal to be called a socialist, why it is negative. Commenting on the current political situation, James Kennedy suggested that socialism is legalized plunder, as Frederic Bastiat called it in his famous treatise, The Law. It does organize, under government sanction, the redistribution of wealth (something which Obama has openly encouraged.) Kennedy comments that the situation in Washington DC is not comic, but tragic. He reminds us of George Washington’s warning that government can become a “fearful master” without a proper moral foundation.

As Christians, we are not wannabe communists, as some suggest from a misreading of Acts 2. The communal lifestyle chosen by some believers is voluntary; the Bible record makes this clear. Government mandated community, communism, is evil. We must not suppose that the government can impose a Christian-like ideal community. Only the Gospel, through the regeneration of lives, can accomplish that. In the meantime, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I will not be fooled into calling it the golden goose.