Socialist, like me
I’ve noticed here, in email, and in various web comments on other sites (strangely worded in the same manner!) the notion that if you think social security, Medicare, etc, are worthy causes then you must be a socialist. Good grief. Yes, they are government interventions in open society but being anti-socialist doesn’t also mean anti-government by any stretch. The idea of societal safety nets belongs to no one exclusively.
But how exactly are such monolithic institutions going to serve as engines for creating further wealth and prosperity for America, as Obama would want us to believe? They exist because America is prosperous, not the other way around. Those wishing to expand these services to more people have a legitimate and even noble argument, but arguing that like institutions would power America towards even greater prosperity is ridiculous.
They also mention public education, while although apparently a ‘socialist’ endeavour too, it most closely represents Obama’s ideal model for social investment and growth. Fine. But nobody seems to want to cast a verdict on our public schools–depending who you ask, they’re either turning out fewer of the right graduates or their graduates are collectively getting less and less, shall we say, accomplished. Not a great indictment of a great social institution.
The bright spots in public education are centered around school choice and merit-based teacher performance, both of which were (and are still) fought viciously by one of the most ardent socio-transformative bureacracies in America, the teacher unions.
Mark me down as unimpressed by the wordspinning of progressives stung by their association with the word ‘socialist.’
Related posts: