Some people have called Obama a socialist, and that has other people all shaken up — even “all wee-weed up,” as the president himself might say. I have a couple cents to add to this discussion — and whether these cents are sense, I don’t know.
For some years — starting long, long before Obama — I’ve played a little game. It goes like this: “If Politician X were not an American, but a politician in some other country, what party would he belong to? If his views and outlook were exactly as they are now — if it were merely a question of nationality, or venue — what party would he belong to?”
Well, let’s play with Obama. . .
Go read the whole thing, but here's a clue:
As I’ve long commented, our terms are a little screwed up here in America — our political terms, I mean. We are weird about “liberal.” What we really mean, most of the time, is socialist, or collectivist, or statist, or leftist. That’s why our MSM had difficulty with John Howard: “the right-wing, Bush-supporting, warmongering prime minister of Australia — by the way, leader of the Liberal party.” And we are kind of hopeless with the word “socialist.” All we know is, “We don’t say that here — except when Bernie Sanders wants to.”
No comments:
Post a Comment