Unfortunately for those of us to the left who may have her forced upon us.
She’s not loud, but she’s very abrasive and condescending. It pours out of her every word. One gets the impression that she would be screaming if it wouldn’t be political suicide to do so; she’s clearly using the same words.
Because in the US, “socialist” is a dirty word, and “communist” is the most heinous profanity one can utter. Even though nothing that either major party has EVER proposed has come within light-years of either of them.
I’m curious as to why you are commenting on the poster, and not the post?
We elect representatives to make decisions (in certain, limited circumstances) on our behalf, not for us. There is a non-trivial difference.
Case in point. Barack vs. Hillary on UHC. Barack wants to make health insurance available to everyone; Hillary wants to mandate that everyone carry it. Barack leaves it up to the individual to make their own decision; Hillary wants to make the decision for us, like a good little Commissar.
So? Participation in/contribution to Social Security is compulsory. That does not make FDR a socialist.
Help me understand your position with some examples. Was the decision to take my money and spend it on invading Iraq a decision made on my behalf, or for me? Is the decision to heavily subsidize the coal industry a decision made on my behalf, or for me? Is the decision to make it unlawful for me to give a campaign my millions a decision made on my behalf, or for me? Is the decision that a must drive a car with seatbelts in it a decision made on my behalf, or for me? Is the decision that I must invest part of my paycheck in helping the retired a decision made on my behalf, or for me? Is the decision that I cannot terminate my own life a decision made on my behalf, or for me? Is the decision that I may not smoke marijuana a decision made on my behalf, or for me?
Since you’ve pointed to a non-trivial difference, these examples should be pretty easy for you to categorize.
Do you drive on roads? Get protected by the army? Get the benefits of NSF research?
I can afford paying $1,000 in taxes far better than my daughter who makes 1/5 of what I do. A rich person can afford it even better. Dispute that if you wish, but it is far from socialism.
“Social policies” does not mean socialism. I’d hardly consider Germany a socialist state. They pay less for better health care than us? I think that’s better. And she even admitted they’re worrying about affordability. If support for families is socialism, I guess I’ve been wrong about my economic self identification all my life.
The reason that she (and Mitt Romney) want to do that is to spread the burden more fairly, and not let that part of the population unlikely to need health care avoid paying until they do. It is just the same as not allowing people to avoid paying taxes if they don’t need something from the government. I don’t get to deduct the cost of the war from my taxes, much as I’d like to. It has nothing to do with making decisions.
I’m an Obama supporter, but Hillary is right on this one.
Speaking purely to the actual definitions of the ideological terms, Dick Cheney comes far closer to being a Fascist than Hillary Clinton to being a Socialist.
And that is not an insult to either individual. (Look up the definitions, and think about it.)
She was a Goldwater Republican in college. She is a closer conservative and business would go on as usual if she were elected. She hob nobs with the corporate shakers and was for the war. She is far from liberal.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2000/04/26/hillary.html
Latest bio data.
Because, for everybody born in the US in the latter half of the 20th century, socialist = Soviets, and Soviets = bad. Ergo, socialism, and everything else that could be associated with the Soviets (eg. athiesm) is bad. Democracy = good. Black and white; there is no gray.
ETA: I was raised in a very conservative home and attended Christian schools until 9th grade, so I may have spoken a bit too broadly above.
BrainGlutton Liberals are nowhere near libertarian, but they are nowhere near socialist either. Companies outsourcing call centers to India is Liberalism at its finest. Globalization, profit, regardless of impact on local economy. That’s liberalism. Whatever is better for business. Let the nation be free if it raises profits, or install a fascist dictator if it raises profits. Whatever is best for business, that’s liberalism. Libertarianism is pro-business as long as people are free.
Then you must absolutely despise the current President who has done much more than any recent President to deny government accountability and increase the power of the government (in particular, the executive branch) to do whatever they want with minimal oversight…and to deny people access to information (or give information only selectively), the most effective way for governments to maintain control over the citizenry.
I’m relatively comfortable with the humptidumptification of terms for group identity, so long as there’s some logic behind the usage. If Liberal likes Gladstonian laissez-faire liberalism and deems himself a liberal on that account, he’s no more or less right or wrong than the guy who believes that nothing short of suborning government to the pursuit of thoroughgoing social justice is true Liberalism.
But I confess to coming up short at your definition. I realize it’s a statement of your opinion, but a couple of questions: Are you talking European-style Liberalism (i.e., moderate-right on the European political spectrum)? Or the normal use in America? On what basis do you make the conclusions you draw above? Whose works regarding what liberalism stand for underlie your thinking?
From a newbie, I’d have considered this a troll or a whoosh post. I know you and your seriousness too well to make any such accusation, but I confess to being baffled about where you’re coming from.
Sigh. I am probably voting for Barack on Tuesday but I actually think Hillary is right on this issue. The problem with not making it a mandate is that it leads to a situation where the healthiest people don’t get health insurance, making it more expensive for everyone else. Furthermore, when they do have something happen to them, they are of course still going to get treatment (unless you want us to leave them to die in the street) so they become free-riders.
Polycarp I mean liberalism in the sense of free-market globalization. There is a sort of cognitive dissonance in terms of how globalization is prosecuted versus the idealism behind it. The idea that the end goal of bringing the entire world to a certain standard of industrialization will provide solutions to poverty, help with wealth/job creation all across the board. It largely ignores the standards that it creates. It forgets about the interim steps that are caused by corporations that play hopscotch across developing nations, building manufacturing plants there until the wages start to rise to a point where it’s profitable to jump ship to yet another cheaper locale. It prides itself on UN food aid to the world’s most needy, ignoring that the subsidies of wealthy farmers in wealthy states that comes with it, creates a situation where local farmers cannot sell rice locally when the UN is providing it for free, and cannot export it for a comparable price to that of the subsidized nations. Liberalism is predicated on the notion that the market is good and that it will always even out in the end, but ignores the necessary reality that big corporations oftentimes have a higher GDP than the nations they are doing business with, and thus can affect policy. Thus national policy becomes another commodity to be bought and sold, nullifying any sort of homeostatic correction that might naturally occur via market forces. In this regard, I am probably speaking closer to Liberal’s tongue in cheek form of liberalism than than I am to BrainGlutton’s American progressive notion of liberalism.
What you are describing is neoliberalism, which actually has a lot of common ground with neoconservatism. Liberalism itself, at least as the term is established in American political culture, is more about Keynesian economics, a limited welfare state, and giving equality at least equal priority with liberty. None of which consitutes socialism, of course.
Sure, I’ll take Neoliberalism, which I wouldn’t say has a lot in common with neoconservatism, but actually IS neoconservatism, or should I say neoconservatism is a clever label to sell neoliberalism to the conservative base. Say Jesus a few times, talk about the gays and then go about your policy of expanding corporate power. There is little difference economically between a Clinton and a Bush, or a McCain and probably even a Romney for that matter. The only candidates who represent a departure from neoliberalism as far as I can tell are Obama, Huckabee and Ron Paul. (Candidates who are still in it of course) I really hope Obama wins, I’d like to see a departure from the neoliberal course we’ve been on, but his prospects are looking a little more bleak.
Well, the difference is one of emphasis. Neoconservatism is mainly about the projection of American military power. But, once territory is conquered/liberated, the neocons’ amibition is to free-marketize it. (In practice, this does not always jibe with the established business interests’ agenda.)
Whose position is more free, Barack’s or Hillary’s?