Obama: Definitely Not a Socialist!

By -
Jeffrey Polet gets Obama right:

"While nothing suggests Obama is a socialist, those of us who have read our Marx may see in him features of late capitalism: concentration of wealth, cooperation between the state and owners, greater wealth inequality."

Yes: While I favored Obama over Romney in the recent election, this was not based on any illusion that Obama was a "man of the people": No, I simply thought he was a slightly more decent and reasonable capitalist overlord than Romney! And, as a conservative, I thought that was the best we could hope for, and that the best we could hope for is all that we should hope for. In the City of Man, you take what you can get.

Comments

  1. Unknown8:33 AM

    Now that I think about it, you're right! Even though I made the mistake of voting for Romney instead of going for my gut instinct of voting for Gary Johnson, I hated Romney from the very beginning even when my political leanings were more towards the left, especially when he came to my high school as part of a pancake gathering. The man himself didn't even want to run for president! It was pretty hard to tell who the real Mitt Romney was, but I think his connections to Clear Channel and guys like Rush Limbaugh ruined his chances of winning anything.

    ttp://cumming.patch.com/articles/romney-stops-in-georgia-serves-up-pancakes-b0013882

    http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/03/03/mitt-romney-comes-to-snellville-on-sunday-to-fight-for-second-place/

    In Europe and elsewhere, Obama is considered to be a conservative president! Funny, isn't it? There's so much fearmongering going on when people are freaking out because his middle name is Hussein. If a lunatic like Bachmann had been president, we would have gotten into a disastrous war with Iran that would have undermined America's national security. Next election, if someone like Elizabeth Warren decides to run, I might as well vote for her, especially if Jeb Bush or Rick Santorum end up winning the GOP nomination.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:55 AM

    I didn't vote, but if I would have had to pick between the two, I would have chosen Obama. I didn't see much difference between him and Romney on economic issues, even though their rhetoric was quite different the principles were the same. The main point for me was foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. But then, that was based upon the "lesser of two evils" idea.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more