>From a recent Slate Magazine article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2202950/
McCain's Hero: More Socialist Than Obama!
McCain can call Obama a socialist or he can call Teddy Roosevelt his hero. He
can't do both.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, Oct. 23, 2008, at 2:11 PM ET
Imagine that instead of telling Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher that "when you
spread the wealth around it's good for everybody," Barack Obama had said the
following:
We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and
well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing
damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the
gaining represents benefit to the community. ⦠The really big fortune, the
swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which
differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of
relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big
fortunes, and ⦠a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly
safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of
the estate.
The New York Post's Page One would blare: "OBAMA: I'LL SEIZE 'SWOLLEN
FORTUNES'!" Bill Kristol would demand to know, in his New York Times column,
what godly powers enabled Obama to discern precisely whose wealthâDavid
Geffen's? George Soros'?âwould "benefit the community." On Fox News, Bill
O'Reilly would start to say something, then sputter, turn purple, and keel over
backward in a grand mal seizure.
John McCain, meanwhile, would have to stop saying that Teddy Roosevelt is his
hero, because the passage quoted above is from T.R.'s "New Nationalism" speech
of 1910. Either that, or McCain would have to quit calling Barack Obama a
socialist.
T.R. justified progressive taxation straightforwardly as a matter of equality.
In his 1907 State of the Union address, Roosevelt said:
Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are
some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that
there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality
of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the
conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in
him when compared to his fellows [italics mine].
Obama is constrained by a very different political climate to justify his sole
proposed tax hikeâon incomes above $250,000âby stating its benefit to
commerce. Here's his "spread the wealth around" comment in context (for a more
complete transcription, click here):
I do believe that for folks like me, who have worked hard but, frankly,
have also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the
waitress who I just met over there who, things are slow, and she can barely
make the rent. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the
bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing
business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of
customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched
that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth
around it's good for everybody.
In a radio address on Oct. 18, McCain said that to the "straight-talking,"
"plainspoken" Wurzelbacher, words like "spread the wealth around"
sounded a lot like socialism. And a lot of Americans are thinking along
those same lines. ⦠At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire
my opponent are up front about their objectives. They use real numbers and
honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama.
In an Oct. 22 speech in Manchester, N.H., McCain expostulated further:
Joe and guys like him will earn the wealth. Barack and politicians like him
will spread it. Joe didn't really like that idea, and neither did a lot of
other folks who believe that their earnings are their own. After all, before
government can redistribute wealth, it has to confiscate wealth from those who
earned it. And whatever the right word is for that way of thinking, the
redistribution of wealth is the last thing America needs right now. In these
tough economic times, we don't need government "spreading the wealth"âwe need
policies that create wealth and spread opportunity.
When T.R. spoke of "swollen fortunes" and "malefactors of great wealth,"
socialism was a genuine force in American politics, perceived by many to pose a
serious threat to the social order. When T.R. first called for a "graduated
income tax" in his 1907 State of the Union, he was proposing a measure that the
Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional. Indeed, the federal income tax struck
down by the Court wasn't even "graduated," or progressive; it was a flat-rate
tax. Today, McCain demagogically attacks Obama's purported "socialism" knowing
that socialism is a dead letter in the United States. He feigns shock at
progressive taxation ("confiscate wealth") nearly a century after the states
ratified the 16th Amendment, enabling Congress to enact a progressive income
tax, and nearly a decade after he himself scolded a town-hall questioner on
MSNBC's Hardball who cried "socialism" about the rich having to pay a greater
percentage of their income in taxes. "Here's what I really believe," McCain
said. "When you areâreach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong
with paying somewhat more."
In his book The Great Tax Wars, Steven Weisman, formerly of the New York Times,
writes that T.R.'s previous experience as police commissioner of New York City
made him worry "about anarchy arising from gross economic inequality." Today,
the income gap between the top 0.01 percent of families in the United States
and the bottom 90 percent is greater than it was in T.R.'s day. The last time
it was anywhere near so great was in 1929. The top marginal income-tax rate,
meanwhile, is near its historic low in the late 1920s. Those of you seeking a
cause to the current financial meltdown may draw your own conclusions. (For
more on taxes and historic patterns of inequality in the United States, click
here.)
T.R., of course, was no socialist. Indeed, his purpose was largely to prevent
socialists from coming to power. But the trust buster got called a socialist a
lot more often than Obama ever will. He writes in his autobiography:
Because of things I have done on behalf of justice to the workingman, I
have often been called a Socialist. Usually I have not taken the trouble even
to notice the epithet. ⦠Moreover, I know that many American Socialists are
high-minded and honorable citizens, who in reality are merely radical social
reformers. They are opposed to the brutalities and industrial injustices which
we see everywhere about us.
T.R. then goes on to outline his strong differences "with the Marxian
Socialists" and their belief in class warfare and the inevitable demise of
capitalism. Later, he returns to his earlier theme:
Many of the men who call themselves socialists today are in reality merely
radical social reformers, with whom on many points good citizens can and ought
to work in hearty general agreement, and whom in many practical matters of
government good citizens can well afford to follow.
There were, however, limits to T.R.'s tolerance. "I have always maintained," he
concluded, "that our worst revolutionaries today are those reactionaries who do
not see and will not admit there is any need for change."
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2202950/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:278321
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
