McCain responds with a with a shrug, 'I don't know.'"
A commenter at Tony's blog took offense at my characterization of this exchange, and I think I was unclear. I said that either McCain doesn't know what socialism is or he is lying.
Let me explain.
While there are actual definitions of socialism, I believe that Americans hear "socialism" as the same as "communism" and equate both to being "unamerican." And I believe that John McCain understands that very well. He knows that he can very subtly imply that Obama is not a loyal American. He knows that for two reasons--one that the American people respond to that assertion, and two, that liberals would be unable to suggest the same thing about McCain.
Conservatives can casually question the patriotism or loyalty of liberals, but no matter how duplicitous, or corrupt, or even destructive, no one questions the loyalty of conservatives. They can do business with the enemy, or out a CIA agent working for us, and while they might be chastised and criticized, they will not be accused of being unAmerican.
There are definitions of socialism. Most of them include the government control of the modes of production and a controlling the distribution of wealth. We really don't have much of a socialist movement in this country, and while McCain tried to link Obama to " the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont," even that was a distortion. Sanders is a political liberal, calls himself a "Democratic socialist" and is hardly some Marxist.
So when McCain says, "I don't know," what he means is that he doesn't really care about Socialism. Hell, if Obama is a socialist, then so is McCain (or so he was when he was the self-appointed "maverick"). McCain means to undermine Obama's legitimacy. It is the very same tactic that Hillary used when asked if Obama was a muslim. She knows the answer, just as McCain did--in both cases, "no, of course not"--she left doubt because she wanted to question Obama's American identity.
The closest comparison would be if Obama had been asked if McCain was a "fascist" and said he didn't know. But even that doesn't work as well in our culture. I remember a friend of mine saying he voted for Bush in 04 because he was afraid of what a radical liberal like Kerry might do. Of course, as I pointed out then, he seemed completely oblivious that we were living with the disaster of a radical conservative agenda, but the "theoretical" liberal was more scary than the actual conservative agenda of war, torture, and reduced civil liberties.
Sigh.
4 comments:
much clearer.
I still don't agree, but your position makes a bit more sense to me now.
i do agree that McCain was "leaving it to the people" to make their judgment and leading them that way. a rather popular trick among politicians of all kinds.
I don't doubt that this tactic is used by many, including, of course, Obama. Unfortunately, for me, the willingness of conservatives to question liberal loyalties seems more serious than the others, but most conservatives I talk to don't seem to see that.
I think that there are plenty of liberal (and conservative) positions that merit scrutiny and criticism, but I doubt that many actual liberals in the US could be called socialists. I suppose some may have socialistic tendencies, and Obama may have some, but it isn't fair to call him a socialist. Like you say, it is a loaded word and conjures up images of the USSR.
I think the candidates can have much more productive exchanges if they stick to issues.
Yeah, the problem with this label is that it isn't very helpful, and, I might add, is out of touch with the American people. I remember, for example, that Hillary's healthcare plan was quite popular among the American people--until it was labeled hers and called socialism.
The reality is that we are always making choices about our economic and political system. There are clearly places where government interference or action is less beneficial, but also places where it is helpful.
Post a Comment