Difference between revisions of "Myths/Obama is a socialist"

From CWRE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{hdr/myth|Barack Obama is a socialist; the Obama administration advocates socialist policies}} ==Myth== ===Examples=== * "After eight years of Obama-style socialism, we n...")
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{hdr/myth|Barack Obama is a socialist; the Obama administration advocates socialist policies}}
+
{{hdr/myth|Barack Obama is a socialist; the Obama administration advocates [[socialist]] policies}}
 
==Myth==
 
==Myth==
 
===Examples===
 
===Examples===
Line 7: Line 7:
 
You've got to be kidding me.
 
You've got to be kidding me.
 
{{box/quote|
 
{{box/quote|
Look, there’s no reason for “socialism” to serve as a synonym for “stuff Republicans don’t like.It’s an actual word with a fairly specific meaning, involving public ownership of the means of production.
+
Look, there’s no reason for "socialism" to serve as a synonym for "stuff Republicans don't like." It’s an actual word with a fairly specific meaning, involving public ownership of the means of production.
 
   
 
   
And it in no way reflects the Obama era. After corporate profits reached all-time highs, the stock markets reached all-time highs, and the sharp drop in the unemployment rate was based almost entirely on private-sector job growth, I thought to myself, “Well, at least they’ll stop calling Obama a ‘socialist.’” But here we are anyway, hearing the same nonsense.
+
And it in no way reflects the Obama era. After corporate profits reached all-time highs, the stock markets reached all-time highs, and the sharp drop in the unemployment rate was based almost entirely on private-sector job growth, I thought to myself, "Well, at least they’ll stop calling Obama a ‘socialist.’" But here we are anyway, hearing the same nonsense.
 
   
 
   
Have we considered the possibility that Republicans literally don’t know what “socialism” means? Isn’t it plausible that knee-jerk partisans have relied so heavily on the word for so long that they simply have lost track of its definition?
+
Have we considered the possibility that Republicans literally don't know what "socialism" means? Isn't it plausible that knee-jerk partisans have relied so heavily on the word for so long that they simply have lost track of its definition?
 
   
 
   
Cruz complained last year, “Right now, the top 1 percent in this country earn a higher share of our national income than any time since 1928.” I’m curious: does the far-right senator believe those are economic conditions created by “an unmitigated socialist”? Or does Cruz believe the president is just really ineffective in implementing his socialist vision?
+
Cruz complained last year, "Right now, the top 1 percent in this country ... earn a higher share of our national income than any time since 1928." I'm curious: does the far-right senator believe those are economic conditions created by "an unmitigated socialist"? Or does Cruz believe the president is just really ineffective in implementing his socialist vision?
 
|Steve Benen<ref name=TRMS />
 
|Steve Benen<ref name=TRMS />
 +
}}
 +
{{box/quote|
 +
Socialism means the public ownership of the means of production. Does President Obama advocate that? Nope, he doesn’t. Has never suggested a single policy that would even hint at it. This is just an attempt to poison the well. The American public thinks socialists are evil and therefore calling someone a socialist inoculates those people against supporting them.
 +
|Ed Brayton<ref name=EB />
 
}}
 
}}
 
==Sources==
 
==Sources==
 
<references>
 
<references>
<ref name=TRMS>'''2015-04-22''' [http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/thats-not-what-socialism-means That’s not what 'socialism' means] (by Steve Benen)</ref>
+
<ref name=TRMS>'''2015-04-22''' [http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/thats-not-what-socialism-means That’s not what 'socialism' means] (Steve Benen)(via [https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TheRachelMaddowShow/posts/91Q2Gpmk278 Google+])</ref>
 
<ref name=bloomberg>'''2015-04-21''' [http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-21/ted-cruz-says-president-obama-is-an-unmitigated-socialist- Ted Cruz Says President Obama Is an 'Unmitigated Socialist']</ref>
 
<ref name=bloomberg>'''2015-04-21''' [http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-21/ted-cruz-says-president-obama-is-an-unmitigated-socialist- Ted Cruz Says President Obama Is an 'Unmitigated Socialist']</ref>
 +
<ref name=EB>'''2015-04-23''' [http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/04/23/cruz-president-obama-an-unmitigated-socialist/ Cruz: President Obama an 'Unmitigated Socialist'] (Ed Brayton)</ref>
 +
</references>

Latest revision as of 21:24, 23 April 2015

[[category:myths|Barack Obama is a socialist; the Obama administration advocates socialist policies]]

Myth: Barack Obama is a socialist; the Obama administration advocates socialist policies

Myth

Examples

Reality

You've got to be kidding me.


Look, there’s no reason for "socialism" to serve as a synonym for "stuff Republicans don't like." It’s an actual word with a fairly specific meaning, involving public ownership of the means of production.

And it in no way reflects the Obama era. After corporate profits reached all-time highs, the stock markets reached all-time highs, and the sharp drop in the unemployment rate was based almost entirely on private-sector job growth, I thought to myself, "Well, at least they’ll stop calling Obama a ‘socialist.’" But here we are anyway, hearing the same nonsense.

Have we considered the possibility that Republicans literally don't know what "socialism" means? Isn't it plausible that knee-jerk partisans have relied so heavily on the word for so long that they simply have lost track of its definition?

Cruz complained last year, "Right now, the top 1 percent in this country ... earn a higher share of our national income than any time since 1928." I'm curious: does the far-right senator believe those are economic conditions created by "an unmitigated socialist"? Or does Cruz believe the president is just really ineffective in implementing his socialist vision?


—Steve Benen[2]


Socialism means the public ownership of the means of production. Does President Obama advocate that? Nope, he doesn’t. Has never suggested a single policy that would even hint at it. This is just an attempt to poison the well. The American public thinks socialists are evil and therefore calling someone a socialist inoculates those people against supporting them.


—Ed Brayton[3]

Sources