When the rich are outvoted, as frequently happens, it is the joint treasury of the poor which exceeds their accumulations. Every man owns something, if it is only a cow or a wheelbarrow or his arms, and so has that property to dispose of.
So wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson in his Essays, Poems, Addresses of 1844. Today we are witnessing an unprecedented pooling of the people’s treasury in the revolutionary financing of a candidate for president in what could be seen as the clearest outvoting of the rich by the poor(er) in our nation’s history. And, in an undeniably ironic twist, Barack Obama’s record-setting figures for fundraising from average contributors is the ultimate example of capitalism at work in an American election, an election in which the Republican candidate has taken government regulated public funds, while painting his opponent as a socialist.
Let’s take a closer look at exactly what the Obama campaign has accomplished. Their just released figures for the month of September are staggering: over $150 million dollars raised, all through private citizens, with an average donation of less than $100 per contributor. In that one month alone, they added 632,000 new donors, totaling over 3.1 million contributors to the campaign. Their largest contributing groups are retirees and students, neither of which make up the wealthiest demographics of society.
For the first time in the history of US elections, regular people are able to directly impact a campaign by opening their wallets. Nurses, firemen, schoolteachers, and yes, even plumbers, have paid for this candidate’s run for the highest office, giving sometimes as little as $5 or $10, and if he succeeds, he will be beholden to their interests, and not to those of the large corporations or wealthy donors that usually make up the majority of a campaign’s bank account.* If one of the principles of democracy is that “all members of the society have equal access to power,” can it not be said that we are finally truly witnessing democracy at work in our presidential elections?
So who, or what, is to credit for this historical democratization of the campaign financing process? The candidate himself, as the leader of his campaign, certainly is due some credit. However his responsibility for this unprecedented feat can only go so far; he obviously put the right people in place to handle it, and it is their know-how, coupled by the timing in the evolution of web-based technology that should be congratulated for the achievement here. Additionally, perhaps, is the element of readiness on the part of the people. We are the eBay, amazon.com and Facebook generation, whether twenty-one or seventy-one, Americans increasingly do everything online, from networking with friends, to planning a party, to getting our news, to buying a car. Perhaps not even as recent as four years ago were we ready for the revolution in politics that the internet could offer. Or perhaps we were, but no candidate knew how to take advantage of it. In any case, here we are, with an amazing 46% of adult Americans getting involved in the political process via the internet, whether it’s simply following the candidates’ campaigns online, or pulling out their credit cards to help their chosen one cross the finish line.
John McCain’s campaign, by contrast, did not pull in a huge number of small contributions by ordinary citizens, but rather opted, as all presidential candidates have done since Watergate, to accept public financing, which greatly limited what they could receive, and spend. As they try to compete against the Obama juggernaut which is overwhemingly outspending them in the most crucial final leg of the race, they are looking to increase their coffers through campaign finance loopholes that allow them to collect large donations from wealthy donors. Obama is also receiving contributions from wealthy donors, though the numbers pale in comparison to what his campaign has collected from small donors.*
McCain has admitted to possessing very limited knowledge of computers and the internet, so he is clearly not the candidate to helm an online fundraising force like Obama is. Due to the obvious imbalance in the two campaigns in this regard, it is impossible to draw any tempting conclusions in reference to people voting with their wallets, we have to rely on the old-fashioned polls for our gauge of the political temperature on either side. But let’s say that the Republicans take a page from Obama’s playbook and build their own populace-based fundraising machine next time around (and I don’t doubt they will). I think it is safe to assume that we are looking at a whole new era of campaign financing. And here, another irony: John McCain famously fought in the Senate to reform a campaign financing system that he rightfully saw as corrupt and out of control. And yet it is during his run for the presidency that the system finally is truly reformed… by his opponent.
“Under the dominion of an idea which possesses the minds of multitudes, as civil freedom or the religious sentiment, the powers of persons are no longer subjects of calculation. A nation of men unanimously bent on freedom or conquest can easily confound the arithmetic of statists, and achieve extravagant actions, out of all proportion to their means,” wrote Emerson. From the clear divisions of political sentiment in this country, we cannot say that we are a nation of one mind, or that one candidate, one man, has brought the entire population under the dominion of an idea, or set of ideas. But we can regard what the Obama campaign has achieved in this election cycle as extravagant actions, certainly, as it has studied lessons from the past, embraced the technology and mood of the present and reinvented the future of campaign financing, defying all expectations and odds, and most definitely out of all proportion to its means. “Public” campaign financing is dead, long live campaign financing by the public!
Think about it: what is the public financing system but one of the very socialist constructs that we Americans so vociferously reject? Funds collected from the public by the government are doled out to the candidates with restrictions and regulations attached, while forbidding the use of the free market to get a candidate’s message out to the people. Like all socialist institutions, the aims behind the adoption of such a system were noble ones, but in practice it just doesn’t work in safeguarding against corruption; on the contrary, it may lead to even greater corruption via the need to circumvent the system and appeal to wealthy supporters. Thus to those that buy the claims by his opponents that Obama is a socialist, I would point to his campaign as a bellwether of his likely leadership on policy initiatives and legislation. He understood the current system was broken, he realized the potential of access to unlimited funds via the public, and in the most astonishing democratization of capitalism that we have ever seen in a presidential election, he is riding the waves of the free market to the White House. And that’s an all American pig that doesn’t need any lipstick.
______________________________
*A New York Times article this morning examined the contributions by wealthy donors to both candidates via fund-raising committees that allow much higher donations than the campaign finance laws allow individual donors to give to the campaigns directly. The argument could certainly be made that Obama may in fact feel beholden to these individuals that are giving $25,000 or $30,000 each to help him reach the White House. However the article states that there were only about 2000 such contributors to his campaign, for a total of less than $150 million through September. Compared to the 3.1 million small donors for a total of $605 million raised, it doesn’t change the fact that the campaign is still overwhelmingly funded by average citizens contributing less than $100 each. It should be noted that the McCain campaign has raised more money than the Obama camp through these wealthy donors, as the limits on the Republican side were raised to $70,000 per donor in the fine print.
So let me get this straight. You are so jealous of other people’s wealth that you think Barack Obama and this ‘new’ regime of government deserve all of the money that have been worked for by private individuals? You would rather other people’s money be given to Barack Obama to ‘redistribute’ it where he feels necessary. Why wouldn’t private citizens be able to decide where their own charitable donations will be apportioned? Why is it that you personally feel that Barack Obama has the authority to take people’s wealth and spend it leisurely among himself and other filthy rich politicians.
Why do you think the government should be larger? IT SHOULD BE SMALLER. IT HAS DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE.
Also, the fact that Barack Obama has received SO MUCH wealth during this election from private individuals SHOULD show you alleged Obama supporters that PRIVATE DONATIONS ARE GOOD. Did either candidate choose to take money from the government to fund their campaign? NO.
WAKE THE HELL UP. STOP PULLING THIS COUNTRY DOWN WITH YOUR OWN GREED AND ENVY.
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!
Marie Stacey,
Thanks for reading. Unfortunately, you don’t have it straight, I’m afraid. You have it completely backwards. I didn’t write anything that you claim I “personally feel,” like that Obama has the authority to take people’s wealth and spend it leisurely, or that I think government should be larger, and I would appreciate it if you can point out to me where you found that in the above post. I’m speaking only about the election here, not about Obama’s policy ideas, which, however, I don’t believe have anything to do with what you are stating. Of course private citizens should be able to decide where their own charitable donations will be apportioned, that is exactly what I am saying. I AM saying that private donations are good, that is the whole point. I am referring to Emerson who was a firm believer in the Individual, and small government.
I’m afraid that your bias and anger due to comfortable misunderstandings are not allowing you to read the words clearly. Take a deep breath, and try again.
At the risk of repeating myself, let me ask a question that I have asked before: how on earth is it possible that someone who reads and writes English can so completely misunderstand a thought written in it? The answer to this question will quite well be an answer to most of human anger, quarrels, fights… and wars.
Naomi,
I read what you wrote. That was my response. Did you find it too compelling to actually respond to the arguments?
Whether you want to admit it or not, I know what Barack Obama’s policies are.
If you have read Karl Marx or Saul Alinsky, you know I am on the right track.
Like I said: WAKE THE HELL UP. We don’t have time for educated people to make uninformed decisions in this election.
Freedom v. Socialism.
Barack Obama does not support freedom of the individual. If you disagree with me, then find a place where he has talked about the importance of freedom and individual liberty. I’ve never heard it so good luck.
Remember, Americans, what we fight for. Not radical change. FREEDOM.
Also, are we really still so brainwashed we believe that the ‘poor’ are the ones funding Obama?
COME NOW. He has gotten foreign contributions and contributions from liberal elitists. Very rich people have been contributing to Obama. Don’t be fooled by Obama’s staunch socialism. When was the last time HE donated to charity? He’s a millionaire. You would think someone that was attempting to obligate most of the American public to give an undue amount of their own hard-earned money to the federal government, the person that demands it should at least donate as much as he expects other people to donate. Is that not what would be considered ‘fair’?
And I really do hate the emphasis put on ‘fairness.’ Equality is everyone being free, not everyone being treated equally by the government. The government is not half as good as it thinks it is at making problems better. They usually exacerbate problems that the people have to then rectify. I’m sick of rectifying the government’s problems and you should be too.
Vote John McCain for President in 2008 because he will make the government smaller.
Naomi, I think you should start deleting some posts here… A level thinking plane just isn’t a place to be flooded by some angry dogmatic rants, deaf to everything that you have been saying.
Agreed. Too bad the whole point of my post is being completely ignored in an effort to spread the misinformation around. Oh well.
Naomi,
Your post is about the ‘poor’ funding Obama.
I have explained to you why this is largely incorrect.
You just hate that I got to the core of your point and dismantled it.
You can’t delete us. We keep coming back. Under different names. With different thoughts, but always with the best intentions for America.
Please don’t ignore me. It only hurts yourself in the long run. The more we ignore each other and pretend our opposition are discredited for making an argument we do not particularly agree with, then we lose debate. We lose America. And we lose freedom.
This is no time for you to run and hide from people like me that try to explain to you what is REALLY GOING ON. Do not delete my posts. It only shows weakness on your part and I will be back whether you delete them or not.
Marie,
You haven’t explained why my argument is incorrect, and you haven’t dismantled anything, you have just taken the opportunity to stump for McCain.
No-one is ignoring you, I think you have had more than ample opportunity to speak your mind here. I’m not going to get into a McCain vs. Obama discussion, sorry. I was writing about the revolution of campaign financing in this election cycle, which I think is pretty exciting.
Naomi,
Yes I have. It is incorrect because you do not address where most of his money ACTUALLY comes from. But it would be very difficult for you to do this since he has not released any records yet regarding who has contributed to his campaign. He refuses to do so until after the Election. Had he published that information, you would probably have been able to make a much more comprehensive article; however, I am not compelled by your speculation that the ‘poor’ funded Obama’s campaign. Many of the donors are unidentified or anonymous. I am sure there are many repeat donors who were never analyzed for the fraud.
There has been A LOT of fraud in this Election. It is time for the American public to realize it and try to put a stop to it.
Why are you supporting Obama?
Ms. Camilleri,
For 30 years I worked as a television journalist for ABC News and WABC. As a veteran newsman I have found your recent blogs fascinating with lively and informed writing. I especially agree with your points about the McCain campaign being hampered by its narrow vision of the electorate. The Obama campaign continues to amaze with its ability to raise campaign funds by tapping into this countries greatest resource: its people. What could be more American than a campaign funded by concerned and motivated citizens. At a time of economic downturn, when Americans will suffer as a result of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts, (which got us into this mess in the first place) are willing to sacrifice their hard earned dollars for a candidate they believe will bring equity and tax reform, Democracy is the winner.
Dear Naomi,
I love your articles. And it makes me so sad to see some of the replies. Not because they disagree with you.
It is because I get this very disturbing feeling that many people have given up thinking. Too difficult, too painful.
People clearly do not realize that in these times, with the extraordinary challenges we face, all of us are called to use whatever portion of brain we have received.
Hatred, manipulation, prejudice, superstition and the mother of them all, Ignorance, will not help anybody this time. It might help McCain win this election, but that is not the point.
There is much more at stake this time.
Coming from a country, Italy, that has turned its back to reason and has decided to commit suicide with its recent political choice, it is a torment for me to witness the same spite for reason, for knowledge here.
‘There is no substitute for knowledge’ Dr Deming used to say. How simple, yet how difficult.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Naomi. Don’t give up!
Mariestacey,
You have drunk the purple liquid of ignorance.
Your rants are nothing more than that. You are a victim of your own ignorance. Obviously, the “bailout” of our financial markets and banks is putting the money of hardworking Americans at risk because of the failed Bush economic policies. The failure of Bush SEC chairman Cox to properly watchdog unsavory Wall Street practices along with his efforts to weaken SEC power is a culprit in this massive economic meltdown and a disservice to the interests of the American people.
It is so ironic that a market philosophically based administration should be the one that has brought America to a European style Socialist system of nationalizing the banking industry.
Those Real Americans you and Sarah Palin talk about have been the victims of the failed Bush/McCain policies along with the rest of us REAL Americans.
Warren Buffet agrees with Senator Obama that we need higher taxes on those Real Americans who are not paying their fair share. If you haven’t heard in your bubble of ignorance, the disparity between Real Americans and Rich Americans has never been so wide. It is the Real Americans who pay their taxes while the rich Americans send jobs abroad. It is the Real Americans who see through people like you, Palin, Bush, and McCain as nabobs of negative discontent.
You have nothing to offer; meanwhile, the rest of us Real Americans are about to turn you people out and make you a disturbing footnote in the evolving evolution of One America.
Barack Obama will be your next President. Will you be a good American and support the will of the people? Will you support America in the 21st century as we redefine American exceptionalism led by a Black Man… a Black American Man? I hope you come to your senses and leave your bigotry behind.
John Johnson,
Why are you people on the Hard Left so obsessed with race. I have no problem being led by an African-American man or woman; I have a problem being led by a Marxist who does not want to preserve the United States Constitution.
I’m sick of you people pulling out race and then silencing all arguments around you. Get off your high horse. We’re not all bigots. We just want someone who abides by our laws. It is not that much to ask when you think about it.
Very interesting blog.
I’m going to take some time to assuage miss Marie Stacey’s concern with an odd thing called logical deduction due to a strange endeavor called “reading the blog” before doing an exciting thing called “speaking angrily against it”. Hopefully this will clear up any possible misunderstandings that you may have had about the opinion of this blog, as I am sure that no matter what your opinions are you’d hate for them to be misconceptions, right?
First, the point of the blog was to say that rather than big businesses and interest groups funding the political candidates in becoming the First American (president) it was done by the people, or the “Demos”. Private citizens have given money to him, not people who would attempt to have him change his policies in their favor. Well, I suppose it could be argued that everyone wishes that his policies would change in his favor, and if this is true then perhaps this is another example of the democratic system finally beginning to work. Nothing has been stated about making government larger or smaller.
And I’m not sure how much you have actually read about Obama’s policies, but he does believe in freedom of the individual.
You see, here in the US we appreciate something called “Freedom of Opportunity” over something people like the Swedes appreciate, “Economic Equality”. Freedom of opportunity means that anyone, no matter how poor, if they play their cards right they could stand beside a Rockefeller or Bill Gates in the upper class. There gets to a point though where society is so divided between rich and poor that the classes become still.
Luckily here we have always had the Middle Class, which allows the average American to live like the kings of old if they so choose. But during Bush’s presidency, the economy has worn away at the fabric that held the Middle Class together, while making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Barack Obama’s tax policies merely ease the burden on the middle and lower classes. He is taxing the rich more*, it is true, but he offers several options for the rich to ease this tax. For instance, one is an idea favored by the pure Republican idealism, that being that outsourcing is bad, American jobs are good. Thus, if a big business hires more American jobs, according to Barack Obama’s plan, they will get tax credits.
I’d also like to point out that the recent labeling of Obama a “socialist” has actually gone both ways; McCain, after all, voted for the bailout which nationalizes American banks. This is one of the most socialist things that anyone can do. Obama did vote on it too, it is true, but my point remains that McCain will not necessarily make government much smaller than Obama. It is true, though, that these days McCain says so much that it is hard to understand where he lies on the political spectrum except in the group of staunchly anti-Obama people.
Let me be clear though, for your sake. The post is not about the poor. The post is about the People funding a president’s campaign instead of big businesses. I state this again because you felt the need to say it multiple times.
Please, read her post. I will use a direct quote; you said that she doesn’t say where most of his money “ACTUALLY” comes from. And I quote: “The argument could certainly be made that Obama may in fact feel beholden to these individuals that are giving $25,000 or $30,000 each to help him reach the White House. However the article states that there were only about 2000 such contributors to his campaign, for a total of less than $150 million through September.”
And then it goes further: “Compared to the 3.1 million small donors for a total of $605 million raised, it doesn’t change the fact that the campaign is still overwhelmingly funded by average citizens contributing less than $100 each.”
You seem like you have read enough political theory to understand that people won’t necessarily feel loyal to people who gave them unsubstantial amounts, and in the case of Obama due to how much he has made no amount of money by any of the larger corporations (likely) has made a substantial impact on his ideals.
You say that you just want someone who abides by our laws: It would be convenient, merely for this topic’s sake, that there was a law that had people read something before speaking against it. I don’t think that is too much to ask either, if you think about it.
Well, with that out of the way, thanks again for an interesting and informative Blog.
*A point about this, McCain, in 2000, stated that he felt the same exact policy was important. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNke6ad0t6g this is him saying as such, as taken from the Daily Show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3NF42lsDSw you might enjoy this as well.
Naomi,
I thought your points about socialism and capitalism in the election fund raising campaign were very interesting. It made me think a bit more deeply about the pros and cons of socialism and capitalism. Each has their faults and strengths and I think the fact that you raised it that way in your article shows you are open-minded and have enormous insight. If Mariestacey means by “wake up” what I think she means by it, please stay asleep, because you’re doing a much better job in that condition than she is with her “wakefulness.”
It would be great if your points would make those reactionaries out there — who immediately say someone is Marxist or socialist (and is somehow anti-freedom or anti-American) when they support something that is funded by the public’s money or supported by the public — rethink what they’re labeling negatively as socialism or Marxism.
As someone here pointed out, nationalizing the banking system is a ‘socialist’ type of action and McCain, among many others, supported it. However, under the same definition, using tax payer money to fund anything is therefore socialism.
So answer me this, you socialist haters: How are wars funded? Taxes. What about our federal income taxes and medicare taxes and state income taxes? They all go to programs that are meant to benefit the public. In some states state income tax or property tax funds our schools and other resources that benefit all people. Those are all forms of socialism under your own definition. Yet we all benefit from this system. That is what socialism in ideology is supposed to do.
I also don’t know if Mariestacey has ever used a dictionary to find definitions. Last I looked, equality does not mean freedom. Freedom means freedom. Equality means equality. You can be equal but not free (aren’t all prisoners treated equally? are they free?), and you can be free but not treated equally by the government (gays, for example, in some states are free to be gay but don’t have the same equal rights as others).
Monique,
Everyone does not benefit from socialism. In fact, some people are actually directly affected negatively from socialism. As in, the people who worked for their money just to have it taken by the federal government for ‘redistribution’ processes. I know you don’t care about the people who are stolen from in a socialist system, but the fact that you don’t care does not mean that it does not exist.
Equality in this country means the freedom to be who you choose to be. What is untrue about that statement?
You socialists think you can say that equality is MORE IMPORTANT than freedom, while the soldiers I’m sure staunchly disagree with that, as they are overseas fighting until the death for freedom.
Start thinking about people other than yourself and those who you intend to support, and you will see the infinite downfalls of a socialist form of government.
“You socialist haters.” It is much deeper than that. It is more the fear that the greedy and power-hungry will allow the freedom of those individuals they don’t care about to be stripped by alleged socialists with the ‘benefit of society at heart.’ Here’s an exercise, socialist: Think about Capitalism. Put your prejudices and intolerance for the system aside for the time being. Think about the freedom that a Capitalistic form of government allows. The government in this country was instituted among men to guard and protect the citizens. A limited amount of tax money is necessary to fund wars and all other necessary government functions relating to national security. All other matters were to be left up to private individuals. Do you not see the brilliance of this logic? People are free to do as they choose and to build business venture after business venture in order to promote their own financial success. And keep in mind, socialist, that a person’s financial success is used for an array of different reasons including but not limited to their own stability and needs, their family’s stability and needs, charitable contributions, bill payment, and many other areas. You are too narrow-minded in your thinking. This is a big picture argument. Socialism has had adverse and decidedly negative effects in countries such as England, Italy, Germany, France, and Canada. I could go on and on but you get the picture. There is no reason for us to follow the European trend and give up a very productive and ultimately very amazing form of government.
We are the only free nation (besides Georgia under threat by Czar Putin). And the only reason you have a hard time understanding what I’m saying when I reference freedom is because you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that fairness is the ultimate goal. Equity should be achieved before all else. Success and failure should be dependent on equality. Do you see the flaw in this line of reasoning? Success and failure IS NOT dependent on equality. People are free to succeed if they wish to. Many people fail. I would say even most people fail at least once. That doesn’t mean people have to give up in this country. TRY AGAIN.
My gay friends are not pushing for a marriage amendment. They are fine having the same civil rights as others but they do not want a marriage amendment forced through the federal government. I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make about gays not being treated equally, but you’re grasping at straws.
Freedom is the highest form of equality.
Also, the government never has and never will succeed in distributing ‘equality’ over the masses.
Accept that it cannot and has never happened. We will be able to understand each other much easier.
Thank you, everyone, for contributing to a very interesting and lively discussion. Even though it is not directly related to my post, the general debate of socialism vs. capitalism (which is endless, needless to say) is obviously the bigger picture. I think we would all agree that insults and name-calling do not ever strengthen our arguments, but rather only deafen those in our audience that oppose our views. I have posted a general note to my blog that I will be deleting comments that are truly off-topic, insulting, spreading lies or unsubstantiated rumor, or rabid political rants. Let’s please all try to make our arguments rationally and free of emotional finger-pointing, however tempting it may be. If we do that, we will get much closer to being able to understand each other, and though we may never agree, we can at least debate civilly.
Also, I ask that you please keep your posts to a reasonable length. Brevity is the soul of wit, as a very wise writer once said. It is also the soul of the short American attention span.
Naomi,
Thank you for still allowing me to post. I appreciate it. I really enjoy civil debate too.
Ultimately, every member of an imagined society without taxes, at some point of his wealth accumulation (since he doesn’t pay taxes) could/should feel an ethical suggestion to give part of that wealth to help poor, sick, injured, misfortunate, or to do something for a greater good, such as build a road, or a park. Therefore, absolute capitalism simply isn’t ethical. Absolute socialism, on the other side (or Communism) is correct, but impossible to achieve in reality of this world.
Obviously, there isn’t a society on this planet which at the present time doesn’t mix elements of both. We could argue just about the mixture ratio, and ratios are a vague thing to argue about.
As for the particular details, I am not happy that the overwhelming majority of my taxes goes to fund the Pentagon. This negates my freedom. On the other side, I do not have healthcare which could be provided by a tiny fraction of those taxes – if our healthcare wouldn’t be a profit based capitalist venture. Sometimes people have to be protected from capitalism, when it gets too extreme. Just as people need to be freed from socialism, when in extreme cases it becomes non functional, dictatorial and stifling to the economy, which is happening in some (but only some – look at Scandinavia for the opposite example) European countries.
See, it’s all about the ratio. Based on the above, I have to conclude that America has a far way to go before we can call it balanced between capitalism and socialism, reaping benefits from both, and avoiding the traps of the two.
Having said that about socialism, I also wanted to point out that capitalism is not the evil side of the coin. And I’m glad I stand corrected by Naomi’s clear debate about how at times capitalism is more democratic than socialism. As a self-labeled socialist, thank you Naomi for broadening my mind.
Predrag,
Two things are inevitable in life: death and taxes. Your hypothetical situation involving alleged rich people who never pay taxes simply just should not exist and if it does, the courts should take the tax money. That is why we have an IRS. They are supposed to notice if a person of substantial wealth is not paying taxes.
Also, your tax money going to the government and then going to a program that you do not support is precisely my argument against taxes, and it is a beautiful argument against socialism. Your spin doesn’t hide the truth in your words. You don’t want your money going to the government if they are going to spend it on programs that you don’t agree with. NEITHER DO WE. We want the government to stop spending our money and stop taking so much of our money just to spend on useless programs or to line their own pockets. You agree with me, you just have trouble admitting it.
People don’t need to be ‘protected’ from Capitalism. What kind of mindset is that? That is a WEAK mindset. People should look to benefit from the capitalist system. It is human nature to maximize one’s own self interest, so applying that to our business markets is the only logical route to produce the most efficiency. Competition is not something to be protected from. Competition shows people their own faults and encourages innovation and individual thinking.
We are not a country meant to balance capitalism and socialism. Where is that in the Constitution? Capitalism is our form of government. If the government finds it necessary to limit monopolies and oligopolies, I have no problem with that. But that is the extent of government involvement in the marketplace. Any more than that is unproductive and extremely inefficient, no matter the spin put on it by the hard left.
Freedom is the highest form of equality.
Yes MS, I agree with you on every point about which we are equally informed, and where our comprehension abilities are equal. This is no secret, and has always been the case. However, I am still under the impression that you start writing before you finish reading, and that you start reading with a premise that you won’t agree with the material. Most of the answers to your questions are in the post you just replied to, and I don’t need to discuss them until you have read that again.
And as a question to you, I’m not sure how do you suggest I compete against a profit-based healthcare.
I probably didn’t give this article the time it deserves, so I will go back and reread it again.
In the meantime, I can’t answer your question about how to compete with profit-based healthcare until you either explain to me your profession or the reason you intend to ‘compete’ and not just benefit from the profit-based healthcare system.
Marie,
I do not believe in censorship of any kind, and, contrary to much of what you have claimed here, I have no interest in silencing anyone, no matter how much I may disagree with their arguments. The only thing that I will silence on this blog are insults, rants and the spreading of lies, as they don’t serve the greater purpose of intelligent discussion, but only detract from it.
I have observed with some amusement as you have called me a socialist and assumed, based on nothing that I have said, that I am pro-socialism and anti-capitalism. The fact is, that I am neither and both. As Predrag has so well articulated already (so it’s pointless for me to repeat it), there is no such thing as pure socialism or pure capitalism. These ideologies do not work except in theory in their purest forms. I am American, but I have lived in three socialist countries, and I have experienced first-hand the benefits and costs of both government systems. Different systems work for different societies, there is no “one size fits all” in government. In America, yes, capitalism is the best fit for our national character, and our history of individualism. Again, this is why I celebrated what I see as not just capitalism at work in this election, but a capitalism practiced by all the people, not just those with the majority of the capital.
All this said, the government does have a role, and a responsibility, to serve the people. As Predrag said, it is a very fine line where to set that ratio, and we haven’t gotten it right yet, by any means. But it is a necessary balance, if we are to preserve our freedom, and equality, which are both very important to all of us, not just to those on Right.
Re: protection from capitalism
Oh, say I’m just an ill or injured individual who can’t afford healthcare. That’s why I would think that I need protection from capitalism which has made our healthcare about 5x more expensive than in Europe.
Predrag,
Why don’t you or whoever in the hell you think you’re talking about buy a healthcare plan? Do you not have a job? Are you not making money? Because the insurance companies are competing for your business. They want it. And they want to make it affordable to you.
I hate these hypothetical situations from people who already have healthcare.
My question to you is this: If you already have healthcare, why do you need the government to give it to you?
Naomi,
I think you’re misreading my posts because I am confrontational. I did not call you a socialist. I called Monique a socialist because that’s what she called herself.
I apologize if I have offended anyone personally in this debate, but this is not the time for us to stay silent in fear that someone may become offended by the truth. It is time to let the truth speak for itself. And I don’t propose to always know the truth, but I do know what I know, what I’ve seen, what I’ve experienced, and what I’ve studied. I have a very different perspective on the government than you are used to hearing about. I just wish people were as interested in what I have to say as they are interested in hearing people regurgitate socialism’s talking points. It never seems to work out that way though.
How long have you lived in this country?
I don’t believe that this country needs socialism. Some form of regulation from excessive greed of corporations is fine, but I see and hear nowhere in the founding of my nation that states we must adhere to socialist principles.
Freedom is a uniquely American trait. Why don’t any of you appreciate it? People are fighting and dying for it as we speak, but you only seem to appreciate that when you’re begging to pull out of the war.
I’ve said from the start that I think you’re educated and intelligent to an extent, but I think some of your unnecessary rhetoric makes your arguments less effective. I’m sure you think the same about me. Neither of us are perfect. Both of us are trying to understand.
And for that matter, I really don’t think Capitalism and Socialism are compatible. I don’t think there will ever be a balance between because socialism elicits leaders to authorize themselves to control the citizens — from taxes to the fairness doctrine to a politician formed militia against opponents. Once that happens, it’s all downhill from there and Capitalism becomes obsolete.
One more question for your readers, Naomi.
The Education system in our country is literally spiraling downhill fast. I just heard a news briefing stating that other countries are exceeding us in educational studies. I believe it because I’m still in college. I know what is taught here and the bias that exists. I’ve been fighting it since day one.
Anyway, do you think private institutions would be more efficient in funding school systems rather than government-funded institutions? It seems from the premise of your article that you would agree that private contributions are much more useful than allowing the government to provide it.
Education reform starts with privatizing school systems in my opinion.
mariestacy sure has a lot to say, doesn’t she? Why doesn’t she start her own blog? She doesn’t let another person get a word in edgewise and then blasts those who do, as if being aggressive in tone is the only way to reply to ideas she doesn’t agree with. We’re trying to be civil here. She’s the only one using caps in her comments and a defensive stance. No one here needs to defend what they say, and we’re not here to attack each other. We’re all living in this country and we all care about it, or we wouldn’t spend our time to write about it in these types of forums.
Monique,
This is a debate forum right now. If you had an argument, you would present it.
And yet you just sit here and complain that I’m still posting. Here’s an idea, socialist, think about what I’m saying. It makes sense if you actually think about it. If it didn’t you would have something better to say than I use caps too often. I generally use caps to indicate a point I want to get solidly across.
Please stop reading my posts if you’re so offended by the oppositional argument. None of us have time for closed-minded people that just want to silence opposition without ever confronting it.
And Monique,
Why is it that you think you can write an entire post attacking me and you are justified saying that I am using ‘caps and a defensive stance.’ I don’t care if you and Naomi are friends. Your attitude pisses me off and you are the only one here I have taken a defensive stance with.
For good reason too. I know what kind of person you are. I lived with a ‘self-proclaimed socialist’ for over a year of my life in my first years of college. I know that you think you are the victim and if you complain enough you will silence us.
Maybe that will be the case this time around, but it won’t be because of you. It will be because no one can form a response for socialism that sounds halfway as coherent as what I’ve said. You certainly can’t. As you have well proven.
Sorry but you don’t know what kind of person I am, and I didn’t think I was attacking you. I’m also not offended by you, I’m just surprised by the conclusions you jump to about people you don’t know. I think it’s interesting that you are the one voice here who sounds so pissed off. Everyone has a right to voice their opinion. So why does it make you so angry? Has anyone here written anything that in your opinion makes sense, has any worth or makes a good argument, aside from what you have written? Are you the only one whose opinion is right and true? Several of the posts here have, in your words, ‘formed a response for socialism that sounds coherent’. Your argument is that socialism doesn’t work that’s fine, and you do make some decent arguments. But others here have made good arguments too.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to seem angry.
I’m passionate about this. I love this country. I love being a free individual able to make choices without my government telling me what to do. I have extreme reservations and concerns with both political parties that are running this corrupt government.
I think as citizens we must start with healthy debate. I’m very concerned, as a lifelong United States Citizen, of what is going to happen to this country if Barack Obama implements his form of socialism. This country is different. It’s not easily overrun.
The government’s powers are limited in this country for a reason. You give the government too much power and it never stops revoking individual liberty.
Thank you for your civil response.
Believing that Americans enjoy more freedom than the remainder of the planet is a pretty good indicator of effects of domestic propaganda. Every country has its own “iron curtain” and uses it to its own benefit. America just has an easier time using it because it is so isolated. (And, by the way, a staggering amount of people just believe everything they are told.) In relation to my government, I do not feel free at all in America: I pay an exorbitant amount of taxes (income + property), and almost all of it goes to uses I strongly disagree with.
If I said that in (“socialist”) Europe healthcare costs about 5x less than here, then health insurance (with all their competition, but still profit based) costs about 10x as much as in Europe, accounting for their profits. I don’t have health insurance, and not only because I have to be rich to afford it, but also because I detest the principles they operate on. Whenever I have had an insurance claim (in this country), I have had to take it to court with the insurance company. They always tried to swindle me and deny coverage. This never happens in government controlled coverage, since it is not motivated by maximizing the profits.
Nothing bad can happen to America if it swings a touch left from its present right position. It will still remain extremely right compared to the rest of the world, and quite out of balance. I believe that political extremes are dangerous. Moderation has the best results simply because it reaps the benefits of both extremes more than it suffers from their faults.
Predrag,
If you do not believe that Americans enjoy more freedom than all other countries then you do not understand the country in which you live. This is a large problem. Nationalism is thought to be such an atrocious personality trait that the leftist elitists have banned any thoughts that could put America above other countries. America is a free nation. There is no other nation with a document like the Constitution of the United States — which apportions freedom to the individual and allows government to protect and guard the citizens. America is not isolated. We have a northern and southern border — which we deal with accordingly. Your arguments are just largely incorrect, and I don’t care how smart you think you are.
“If I said that in (”socialist”) Europe healthcare costs about 5x less than here, then health insurance (with all their competition, but still profit based) costs about 10x as much as in Europe, accounting for their profits. ”
Well IF you said this, I would know you have absolutely no concept of how the healthcare industry in England is failing. Also, don’t use “Europe” collectively. There are many different socialist nations facing different problems because of their specific leaders. England citizens, specifically, have been reported to have a 1 year wait to get a tooth filled. They have also reported not to have the same cancer treatments that can be found in America. They must travel to America if a person wants to cure that form of cancer. Their medical industry is leagues behind ours. Their medications are not nearly as advanced as ours. And the government healthcare has proven to be a hassle and inefficient for the citizens. But yes, it may be speculatively ‘less expensive’ but you do not account for the tax money of citizens used to fund this monstrosity.
Yes, a lot of bad can happen to America if it tries to selfishly coincide two forms of government, which in theory are incompatible. It will go badly. There will be no ‘collective good.’ There will be chaos, despair and ruin. I know that you think I have very little experience with my country, but as a person that has actually lived in this country for their ENTIRE LIFE and could produce a valid vault birth certificate if requested by the courts, I understand what socialism will do to this country.
It may benefit YOU momentarily, but it will have negative effects on your life as well. That is to say if you actually work and you don’t sit around and depend on the government for your own sustenance. Socialism only purports to support the people until it takes control of the people. Then it steals money from the people and spends it like a drunken liberal. The money goes down the drain and the people suffer endlessly because their money is being taken by the government so they cannot use it to buy what they need. They must scrimp and save because their government’s greed and excess is hoarding all of the money from the hard-working individuals.
5x more has meaning. There is no such thing as 5x less.
I’m late to the discussion, so forgive me if I jump on a number of tasty morsels from our friend, mariestacey.
>”Barack Obama does not support freedom of the individual.”
I like the ‘Libertarians for Obama’ blog’s response to this, so I’ll just quote that rather than have to write it myself:
“Upholds the principals of individual liberty: Advantage, Obama. Here are some of the principals of individual liberty which Obama supports and John McCain does not: a ban on torture, gay rights, separation of church and state, privacy and free speech. Obama isn’t perfect in this category (he’s against gay marriage and has given qualified support to warrantless wiretapping), but I have faith that his heart is in the right place overall.”
Full post:
http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-is-libertarian-redux.html
This article also gives him higher points on individual liberty over McCain, though it praises Bob Barr over both candidates, unsurprisingly:
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m10d2-Which-presidential-candidate-is-best-on-civil-liberties
>”Don’t be fooled by Obama’s staunch socialism. When was the last time HE donated to charity? He’s a millionaire.”
The Obamas donate to charity every year, last year alone they donated over $200,000 to charity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26taxes.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
>”[Obama] has not released any records yet regarding who has contributed to his campaign… Many of the donors are unidentified or anonymous. I am sure there are many repeat donors who were never analyzed for the fraud.”
Aha, you are sure. Because you know. Just like you know about soldiers and gays and about socialism because you live in America. Oh wait, we haven’t gotten there yet.
Since you know so much, you most certainly also know that by law a candidate does not have to disclose the names of donors that have donated less than $200 to the campaign. These are the names that Obama has not released. Any sign of fraud that has come to the campaign’s attention has been investigated and the money returned:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403
His campaign has disclosed all other donors.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money21-2008oct21,0,7891929.story
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=8&goButt2.y=9&goButt2=Submit
>”I have a problem being led by a Marxist who does not want to preserve the United States Constitution.”
This is silly talk. Obama is not a Marxist (if you really think so let’s see some proof), and he was a “senior lecturer” of Constitutional law at UChicago for ten years. I have a feeling (just a feeling, of course, I would never assume to know for sure) that he knows the Constitution a little better than you, and he has a deep respect for it, given that it is his area of expertise.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/magazine/21obama-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin
>”You socialists think you can say that equality is MORE IMPORTANT than freedom, while the soldiers I’m sure staunchly disagree with that, as they are overseas fighting until the death for freedom.”
Thanks for speaking for the soldiers, I’M sure they also appreciate you voicing their opinions for them. My brother is a soldier in Iraq, and he has told me that he and many of his fellow soldiers don’t know what the hell they are fighting for over there, except to keep alive and come home, which the government isn’t even letting them do when it said it would. Some have even braved reprimand or repercussions from their superiors by speaking out:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070101/cooperweb
Great film on the subject:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sydney-film-festival-2008/trauma-drama-a-soldiers-view-of-iraq/2008/06/13/1213321626929.html
>”My gay friends are not pushing for a marriage amendment. They are fine having the same civil rights as others but they do not want a marriage amendment forced through the federal government.”
And now you are speaking for gays. Amazing how you know how every group in the country feels! My gay friends do want to be able to get married if they want, and to enjoy the freedoms and protections under the law that other Americans enjoy.
>”Freedom is a uniquely American trait. Why don’t any of you appreciate it?”
We all appreciate it, not just you, and “I don’t care how smart you think you are.” Some people, however, don’t feel that free here in America. People who can’t afford to take a vacation, but have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. People over 70 (like my aunt) who still have to work because they don’t have a pension and social security benefits aren’t even enough to cover the rent. We are free here, in some ways more than any other country, but in other ways we are the prisoners of our own fiercely guarded “freedom.”
>”Yes, a lot of bad can happen to America if it tries to selfishly coincide two forms of government, which in theory are incompatible. It will go badly. There will be no ‘collective good.’ There will be chaos, despair and ruin.”
Save us!!! Guess what, America has already coincided these two forms of government that are “incompatible in theory” with social security, medicare and other welfare programs. I’m sure you don’t like any of these socialist institutions, but we’ve had SS since 1935 & medicare since the 60s and the country hasn’t fallen into “chaos, despair and ruin.” Thanks for the fun drama though!
>”I know that you think I have very little experience with my country, but as a person that has actually lived in this country for their ENTIRE LIFE and could produce a valid vault birth certificate if requested by the courts, I understand what socialism will do to this country.”
Oooh, good argument! I’ve lived here all my life too, and I have a valid birth certificate too, so I guess that means… that I would understand what socialism will do to this country too! It won’t do anything, that’s what. Because it ain’t going to happen. Just take your Ambien, and relax. Obama is going to be a good president, and he is going to try very hard to right many of the wrongs committed against ALL liberty-loving Americans over the last eight years. He may not succeed at all of it, there’s a big mess to clean up, but he will certainly not turn our government toward socialism. You know why? Cause that’s just bullshit right-wing propaganda, and at least the intelligent Republicans know it. If it wasn’t, do you think he’d have all these conservatives endorsing him?
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470555