Will anyone care that Stanley Kurtz has proven Obama’s socialist history?

I caught exactly one minute of Rush today, during which he mentioned a commentator who had said that the only reason that critics called Obama a “socialist” was because the “L” word had lost its power to scare people.  Rush disagreed, saying something along the lines of “words have meaning,” which is why people call Obama a socialist.

Those of us who looked at Obama’s history and his actions, and concluded that his guiding political ideology is now, and has always been, socialism were vindicated today.  Stanley Kurtz has definitively established that Obama’s own history explicitly labels him a socialist:

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

The New Party is and was an avowedly “socialist” political party.  Therefore, Obama, by signing onto its rolls was a socialist.

Those who already dislike Obama and his policies have long affixed that label to him based upon his acts.  In the run-up to the election, the MSM reflexively denied this claim, because people in the media understood that conservatives were using the term as a pejorative.  If we conservatives were stating something as a negative, they had to deny it.  I don’t think, though, that this denial involved any sense on the media’s part that there’s anything wrong with socialism.

Although the media always reserves for itself the role of the nomenclatura, meaning that it personally isn’t bound by the rigors of socialism, it thinks that the rest of the country, the peons and serfs, would benefit from a nomenclatura-controlled government.  Thus, I’m not sure they even denied the term to protect the public’s delicate sensibilities.  Like Groucho Marx, whatever the conservatives are for, they’re against it.  If we say “socialist,” they say “not socialist.”  It’s as simple as that.

Putting aside the MSM’s collective beliefs and motives, I wonder how the peons and serfs feel about the term “socialist.”  I’m not talking about their actual knowledge of what socialism entails or whether it’s good or bad for the citizens of the country in which it is the dominant political ideology.  I’m talking about the visceral response they have when they learn that their President, even as he was identifying himself on ballots as a Democrat, and vigorously (and dishonestly) denying every being a socialist, was in fact a socialist.

Does that newly proved knowledly send a shiver of revulsion up and down the ordinary citizen’s spine? Or, more than twenty years after the Soviet Union broke up, and more than forty years after the Leftists took over America’s educational institutions, is the word “socialist” utterly without emotional meaning?

Self-identified Democrat Progressives probably think it’s great that someone steeped in socialism got so far.  But they’re already all over Obama anyway.  It’s the other ones.  The loosey-goosey Democrats and the wishy-washy Independents — do they care?  Even if Obama’s self-identified socialism made the headlines on every evening news and in every American print publication, would it matter?

I don’t think it matters.  I think that, for conservatives, it’s vindication, insofar as we knew all along that the MSM and the Obama team were blatantly lying to us.  And to the extent politically disinterested people don’t like having people lie to them, the fact of the lie might matter.  But the lie’s subject matter — Obama’s true political orientation — doesn’t matter a damn.  Rush is right that “words have meaning.”  No one knows that better that the Left, with their constant PC Newspeak.  It’s no wonder, then, that they have spent the last 40 years draining the word “socialist” of any meaning within the American political scene.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    Sad to say, I suspect that most people don’t have a clue as to what “Socialist” or “Communist” means. That’s what makes it so easy for the Left to get away with calling themselves “Progressives” – there’s no context against which to measure that phrase.

  • SADIE

    “…there’s no context against which to measure that phrase.”

    How well we know, Danny. ;) 
    “That depends on what your definition of “is” is”

    O/T for Danny: Read about the Hollande plan to reverse Sarkozy and return the retirement age to 60. I am not sure about the translation, but I think it’s Hollande-dazed Sauced in pun speak.  

  • Danny Lemieux

    I’m thinking French Toast! 

  • JKB

    What do you mean 40 years? The Academy started draining the word socialist back in the 1920s. Even conservative commentators won’t embrace the true meaning of the word. First they simply wrapped the word in economics, meaning state owned industry but Britain ruined that for them. In the US, the went for “government-guided enterprise” but kept right on going to regulatory socialism.

    I’ve posted this definition before but it applies. It is from the 1880s when the true face of socialism was seen and pointed out.

    “The Socialist, under this definition, would be the man who, in general, distrusts the effects of individual initiative and individual enterprise ; who is easily convinced of the utility of an assumption, by the State, of functions which have hitherto been left to personal choices and personal aims ; and who, in fact, supports and advocates many and large schemes of this character.

    “A man of whom all this could be said might, in strict justice, be termed a Socialist. The extreme Socialist is he who would make the State all in all, individual initiative and enterprise disappearing in that engrossing democracy of labor to which he aspires. In his view, the powers and rights of the State represent the sum of all the powers and all the rights of the individuals who compose it ; and government becomes the organ of society in respect to all its interests and all its acts. So much for the Socialist.

    “Socialism, under our definition, would be a term properly to be applied (1) to the aggregate of many and large schemes of this nature, actually urged for present or early adoption ; or (2) to a programme contemplated, at whatever distance, for the gradual replacement of private by public activity ; or (3) to an observed movement or tendency, of a highly marked character, in the direction indicated.

    “Such would be the significance properly to be attributed to the terms Socialist and Socialism, consistently with the definition proposed to be given to the word socialistic viz., that which causes government functions to transcend the line of the strictly police powers. ”

    We must acknowledge that everyone has a bit of socialistic tendency on different matters, we like public roads, public education in concept, etc. But the true socialist supports many and varied of these programs. I think Obama is such a man. Over at OTB, I posted this definition and got push back that Obama did like individual initiative as evidenced by his books and other money making schemes. Of course, he like individual initiative for himself and his cronies, it we other guys he doesn’t want showing any.

  • Danny Lemieux

    “Over at OTB, I posted this definition and got push back that Obama did like individual initiative as evidenced by his books and other money making schemes.”

    But, that’s hardly out of character for socialists: socialist, no matter what their gang colors, believe in redistributing other peoples’ monies, not their own.  The socialists consider themselves anointed elites that are most worthy and deserving of the wealth created by the sweat, labor and intellect of others because, you see, socialists are bien-pensants (i.e., right-thinking folk) saving humanity from itself.

    That’s why you have self-proclaimed socialists/communists ranging from industry titans (Armand Hammer, Warren Buffet, George Soros) to low-grade politicians (Al Gore, Obama, Elizabeth Warren, French President Francois Hollande) who have no problem with their own obsessive greed and materialist accumulation because, you see, they deserve it. They are better than us because they think good thoughts on our behalves.

     

  • Michael Adams

    I saw a copy of Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy, at Goodwill a couple of years ago, and, in my stupid obstinance, refused to buy it, because it was priced at three bucks, and, since it had been printed in about 1945, the original price was less than two. The novel was a political tract, written in 1896, a Rip Van Winkle story about a man who awoke in 1996, and was being shown all the wonders of the modern socialist state that had developed while he slept. Everyone had enough, because it was arranged so rationally, no wasteful competition, no duplication, and, of course, limited variety. The reason I wish I had bought it is that it set forth the socialist schema so well, and, intended as a tract, serves now as a satire, as More’s Utopia also did, in his day. I highly recommend it, because the simple dissection is a sort of reductio ad absurdam of socialism. Sharing it would help begin the education of this ignorant generation who don’t know what socialism is, or even what an icebox is. They look at you so funny when you say that, having only seen refrigerators. Sorry, not related, but I was irritated about it all over again this afternoon.