Sarah Palin, proud socialist
The best part of Hendrik Hertzberg's excellent New Yorker commentary about McCain and Palin's failed attempt to convince people that Obama is a socialist is the final paragraph containing this boast from Gov. Sarah Palin:
The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.Like, Socialism
the latest
latest episodes
"That's not "Socialism" that's Alaska!",Palin says sardonically, "oh and please pass the Moose with Marxist sauce."
You know what's really weird? How much we've all been talking about Socialism latest. Our political system is completely screwy.
I'm thinking that I should vote for Republican this year. McCain is going to pay my mortgage and Palin is going to give me a yearly oil profits check. It' a gravy train!
Yeah, most other countries consider our Democrats to be centerists or moderate conservatives, not liberals.
Palin only knows how to govern in a socialist state. That explains a lot.
Well, in this case, seeing as she's spunking oil money over all her Alaskans, she's not exactly spreading the same kind of wealth. Not in the way Palin/McCain accuses Obama of taking Joe The Plumber's hard-earned money and using it for some kind of communist conspiracy.
The mention of collective ownership of resources is pretty funny though. Sounds kind of... soviet.
So - she's an ignorant, hypocritical jerk. No surprises there.
I think you can find the meaningful distinction in the first sentence of your quote: "[Alaska] has no income or sales tax."
This just proves the hypothesis that Republicans (and conservatives in general) have zero coherent concept of what it means for something to be socialist, or why that is in any way bad.
About time somebody with a more public voice noticed that; I've tried to point it out several times starting a day or so after they announced her candidacy.
Sara Palin is immune to charges of hypocrisy. She's all caught up with her shots and is good to go!
Hey, they totally convinced me Obama is a socialist. Which is great, because a socialist is exactly what this country needs. Eight years of the capitalist version of redistributing the wealth - IE, upwards, to the already f'ing rich - has basically screwed everybody. I don't know why so many people are so torqued that Obama wants to redistribute some wealth back down to, you know, the exact same people who are torqued about Obama redistributing wealth. But politics is like that, I guess.
Huh? I thought collective ownership of natural resources was different from collective ownership of the products of someone's labor. At any rate, it's interesting that she ONLY has experience governing an entity that can be entirely funded via profits from natural resources.
Mark@3: When did you start trolling your own blog? ;D
Once again proving my theory that Germans love David Hasselhoff.
This years election season has really opened my eyes to how self centered Americans are. Too many are greedy, selfish, and uncaring, and it makes me sick.
"Oh it's so horrible, I'm lucky enough that my hard work has gotten me ahead in life, but Obama wants me to pay an extra 1200$ a year in taxes so my neighbor can get a bit of a break and maybe be able to pay down the credit cards they've been living on since their work cut them back on hours and yanked their benefits. HELL NO! It's my money! That lazy bastard should get another job! MINE MINE MINE!!!!"
If it weren't for the fact that I'm working 2 jobs and barely making ends meet, I'd pack my things and leave, never to look back, and I'd probably be the better for it.
At any rate, it's interesting that she ONLY has experience governing an entity that can be entirely funded via profits from natural resources.
Actually, Alaska *can't* be funded entirely from its natural resources. For every dollar in federal taxes Alaska pays, it receives $1.89 in fed spending, behind only New Mexico.
@GRIMC
Excellent point! Also, let's bear in mind that New Mexico receives a lot of federal funding for things like Los Alamos National Labs, Sandia National Labs, the White Sands Missle Range, etc.
On the other hand, where does the federal money in Alaska go?
So Alaska is a welfare recipient... and the resources are state owned and "leased" to the oil companies to manage. Essentially, nationalization, and the corporations pay-to-play. Like China.
@13
If only this spirit were more prevalent:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/10/28/foreclosed.home/index.html
@15
Binoculars for Alaskans, the better to see Putin rearin' his head with?
By, y'll wldn't knw hdlss chckn f t wlkd n frnt f y. Srh Pln s N sclst. Sh's nt tryng t "rdstrbt" th wlth. Tht's wht bm's tryng t d. H'S th sclst. Gt t rght, ppl.
She's a socialist?
Get a rope.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-palineffigy28-2008oct28,0,541630.story
well, gosh dernit tony41454, now you have completely convinced me that she's not a complete hypocrite-douchebag! gawdallmighty it is so good that you came along to save poor stoopid me frum makin a graaaaaave error in judgemint! now if only i can convince the head of elections to let me tear up my voting ballot and change my vote....oh well, too much trouble. looks like hussein II it is. narf.
She must have picked up Commie viruses from the giant sneezing Putin head staring at her in her backyard.
Srh Pln -- btthd xtrrdnr.
G t: www.btthdplc.cm
Vt fr hr, nd thrs lk hr t gt n ss stmpd n hr hd. Sprd th wrd!! Btthds wll rll!!
This election will be a test of how dumb the average american is.
Wht dzzyng ntllcts hr.
The land belongs to the people of Alaska. Public ownership of land is not socialism.
The oil companies are paying leases for the right to drill on that land.
These are not taxes extracted from the oil companies, they are payments on leases, just like the oil companies would have to pay a private company if they drilled on their land.
Should the oil companies drill for free?
Should the money taken in from this not go to the people of Alaska?
If not, where should it go?
Not only is she a socialist, but I think she might be a terrorist as well. I've heard that she's got a bunch of guns, and I've even heard that she's the head of some organization called "Al Aska". That sounds like a terrorist organization to me.
Public ownership of land is not socialism"
so you are saying the government should own ALL the land?
Technically the government does own all the land. _Real Estate_ derives from the term "King's Land", and we all just get to own a "deed" to certain pieces of the government's real estate. And property tax is basically rent.
But it's still a great way to invest.
Keithirwin, actually, the Al Aska Shrine only allows men to become members.
I'm sorry... did you say failed attempt? Here in Mississippi, "Socialism" is out pacing "Muslim" has Obama's number #1 attribute.
Wait a second here. Presumably all the people here are being critical of Sarah Palin, yet it seems many of you agree with some form of socialism.
If Sarah Palin believed in that also wouldn't that make you like her more?
h wt, shs n th wrng tm. 'm strtng t s hw y ppl prt. Ds t sm rdcls t y?
A state or local government paying dividends to its citizens from local natural resource revenues is hardly socialism any more than a christmas bonus is socialism or stimulus checks are socialism.
Dmcrts r gttng prtty fscst ths dys. Lst w frgt tht th Nz prty ws sclst nd Jm Jns nd hs grp f lmbs t th slghtr wr ls sclst. t's nt jst th thr sd's thnkng tht's dngrs.
you just went over the Irony Event Horizon.
Lol Takuan.
Seriously though, these last couple of weeks have made for fascinating reading. So many people in America (one assumes) seem to be taking Hitler's word for it when he described his party as "National Socialist". When did he become a paradigm of trustworthiness because I missed the meeting.
So, when oil companies agree to pay the state of Alaska, which in turn distributes those earning to citizens (not entirely unlike stockholders), that's Socialism....where as when the gov't forces you to involuntarily forfeit your earning for redistribution,....that's...what? Happy, good time caring, sharing?
It still amazes me what passes for "knowledge" and "depth of understanding" from both sides.
To all of those claiming that this is some magic form of capitalism - If you're not living in Alaska, did you get a cash share of your state's resources? If not, what're you owed?
@ # 33 - No one forces people to live in America. If you don't like paying taxes, you're welcome to leave. Living in America if totally voluntary.
@#30 -
Your reply seems mighty trollish. I won't call it a troll, because it does border on coherent thought.
a) Socialism itself isn't bad.
b) Hitler was also a vegetarian. And an artist. Are all vegetarians horrible people and evil? Are all artists? Your argument that because Hitler had socialist ideas doesn't inherently reflect that socialism itself is evil. I'm sure I could name some evil capitalists, evil fascists, monarchs, dictators, and the like.
c) This government uses socialist programs. In itself, it is partly socialist with a capitalistic backbone. Even "capitalistic" companies use socialism for some programs - ever hear of medical benefits? How about dental? What do people that aren't sick/unhealthy contribute and get back from those programs? Nothing... they pay for the people that ARE sick.
@GRIMC Not just that, but Alaskans are the benficiaries of far more federal earmark dollars per capita than any other state, according to the OMB. http://max.omb.gov/earmarks-public/
Republicans are getting pretty communist these days. Lest we forget that the USSR was a republic.
Godwins Law!
(I really don't understand why Americans have such a knee-jerk reaction to the mere mention of socialism. Much of Europe is governed by parties with socialist leanings or origins... have we really got it that wrong?)
"spreading" sounds less precise and more aggressive. Like you spread peanut butter on a sandwich with no regard for the welfare of the peanut butter.
Did I say "welfare?" Whoopsy.
"Share" is nicer and more reasonable.
Read that Anil Dash post- EVERY word out of Palin's mouth has been predetermined and most likely hashed out over and over. Now that Dash has pointed it out, Palin's speeches chill me to the bone, whereas before I just found them noisome.
Sarah Palin isn't on the wrong team, she's just fulfilling her role as Cobra Command to Obama's G.I. Joe.
I'm tired of Republicans talking about "getting government out of our lives" and railing against supposed socialism. Do they then turn around and take on farm subsidies, cancel their state's federal aid, decrease the size of government, extricate themselves from foreign entanglements, or anything remotely conservative? No. They do exactly what the Democrats do, only badly.
Sarah Palin is a great example of that mentality, and the article just points out the fact. She bribes her own people with bread and circuses to keep herself in power, garnered from taxing businesses using their local resources. Sure as hell sounds like redistribution of wealth to me.
Clause IV of the United Kingdom Labour Party constitution in 1918:
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."
If you own the land then you own the mineral rights.
Red Leatherman @39: That's not a foregone conclusion. Mineral rights can be sold separately.
WakeUpUSA, we're really not big on links that aren't related to the entry. No blame; it's your first comment.
No. It's really not.
Really? I'm not rich, and I got quite a bit of money from George Bush's tax cuts (which are probably about the only positive thing I can remember from his presidency).
Actually, if Obama allows Bush's tax cuts to expire, taxes will go up for everyone. Now, who do you think that is going to hurt more: Rich people who can afford to pay a couple extra thousand a year in taxes, or poor/middle-class people who can't afford to even pay the reduced taxes that they're paying now?
So, Obama makes the claim that he is only going to increase taxes on the wealthy. Which is an arbitrary redistribution of wealth that is not dependent on an individual's use of government services. Which is what makes Obama lean heavily into the Socialist realm.
What Palin is doing is charging companies to use resources in her state. Which pays for all of the state-run government services, leaving extra left over. The extra gets evenly distributed to all of the citizens of the state. Selling state resources for a profit and giving the money to the citizens (or "shareholders" of the state) sounds an awful lot like capitalism to me.
Now, having said that, it doesn't necessarily mean she's not a hypocritical religious nutjob who's not fit to be vice president. And it doesn't mean that the Republican party doesn't have nearly as bad a fiscal plan as the Democrats do. But it doesn't make them socialists.
HollywoodBob:
"Oh it's so horrible, I'm lucky enough that my hard work has gotten me ahead in life, but Obama wants me to pay an extra 1200$ a year in taxes so my neighbor can get a bit of a break and maybe be able to pay down the credit cards they've been living on since their work cut them back on hours and yanked their benefits. HELL NO! It's my money! That lazy bastard should get another job! MINE MINE MINE!!!!"
But that's not what Obama's plan is for. I have no problem with society creating safety nets. What I don't like, however, is the government taking more from me and giving it to people with cell phones for every family member, their third new car in two years, a 50" plasma tv, etc.
So Palin sucks? What's new? The real nasty thing about Palin is that she's taken the critical eye away from Obama. In some mass disjunctive hallucination, his mob of uncritical supporters interprets his vague rhetoric as meaning precisely what they want it to mean, irrespective of what he actually meant when he said it.
Come January, the Palin-bashing is done. Get it out of your system, but be ready to hold Obama accountable for his actions.
This sums up my concerns nicely:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/is_obama_secretly_sensible_don.html
#37
I need someone to make a Baroness/Palin & Destro/McCain image mashup. Brilliant.
Y mrns shld d sm fct fndng.You'll find that there are sales taxes in all but 2 cities in the state.We pay some of the highest property taxes in the nation.
If you grew up in a rural Alaskan village like myself, you would be paying $7.25 for a gallon of gas,$8.39 for a gallon of milk and close to $10.00 for a gallon of heating oil.Thats beside the point though, because the people of the state own the mineral rights to their land.
The $1200 dollar dividend was offset the energy cost of the gas and home heating oil.Just for your information it gets to -40 to -50 degrees in the middle of winter up here in gods country.
a very good, if Deviant,point. Enjoy the combat for tomorrow is coming in any case. The inescapable: America is already in ruins. You can either have Caligula preside over a damn good party for the few, or plodding Claudius kick you all out bed with your hangovers and all, and make you start cleaning up the empties and looking for a job. Either way that sun is coming up. America is broke in several senses. The rest of the world will be getting on with their business.
I think Obama will win the golden laurel circlet. I think the task before him is un-doable. I hope he is able to get it underway. I feel sorry for him as another sacrifice so that the sun will come up yet again.
@Teresa per post#40.
you must have owned a motorcycle, cause you just had to give me a kickstart eh?. well thanks because you should have seen the paragraph after paragraph I deleted before posting earlier on #39.
I guess the focal point of what I didn't say earlier is confusing me. Why is every Alaskan entitled to a share of all Alaskan resources? here in Texas there is a fair amount of mineral resources as well but the wealth doesn't spread in my direction save the fraction after cost and expenses. Only from what I own the mineral rights to. I don't think what is done in Alaska is a bad thing, with the cost of living living there being outrageous and state tax doesn't amount to much because you still have the larger federal tax. I feel it's time for a little sharing after watching corporate greed suck the life out of this country with little if any accountability.
However Palin pointing to Obama as a socialist while leaving 3 fingers pointing back at herself did indeed give me a good laugh.
I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but if she's taking money out of the hands of oil executives and giving it to the people of her state...well, that sounds pretty good to me.
So Mrs Palin is a socialist? I live in Alberta Canada. Alberta is allot like Alaska. Its full of redneck conservatives oil junkies (hey - i would complain but even Mcdonalds is hiring workers at 15$ an hour) What im leading towards is that Alberta and Alaska are kinda alike. We even have legitimate separatist movements! But anyways - Ralph Klein did something like this: he mailed a 600$ dollar cheque to every Albertan. You see - oil companies are very seldom owned by the nation in which the oils reside. Hence when the oil company drills and produces oil they produce a profit for themselves and their home country (when their profits are taxed)
This puts Alaska in a corner:
A valuable oil resource is worthless unless it is mined. To mine this resource they have 2 or 3 options.
1: To hire an American oil company to drill. Workers and company is American so all value held in the oil is transferred across the oil workers and distributed to other Americans yada yada yada. The downside is that while Alaska owns the resource, Alaska may not see the profit. Profit is not guaranteed to enter into Alaska's economy. It can escape with the drilling company
2: Hire any oil company to drill the oil out. Then take a royalty on your resource and distribute the royalty among your citizens (read shareholders) The Oil company doesn't make all the profit it could and hence the "market" is less encouraging.
3: Maybe - consider creating an alaska owned oil company. But that would be public ownership and hence the oh so scary socialism tag. The company would run like a trust - investing profits in further ventures and paying their alaskan workers. i guess pointing out russian Gazprom as an example wouldnt help my point...
But whatever - you can moan and call it socialism. Remember - if your an Alaskan then YOU own that oil. And its the equivalent of theft if they are going to let a resource be exploited without any benefit to the owners.
YOU are a SHAREHOLDER in your country. If your company isn't going to give you a dividend of its profits whats the freaking point of owning resources. Just let everyone pillage as they may.
well jupiter, will`she make the trains run on time too?
The way the Alaska Legislature did it back when oil was first discovered in Prudoe Bay was to take the tax royalties and invested them.They let it grow for 5 years while still investing the royalties.After 5 years they took a small amount of the profits and distributed it to the residents of Alaska.The remainder of the profits go to the state budget.The amount of the dividend is determined on a 5 year average of the permanent fund growth in the investment package.
What people don't understand is the majority of the money that is made on investments is used for road improvements,education,and government projects.
what "education" and what "government projects"?
"well jupiter, will`she make the trains run on time too?"
Who cares? With the money she is giving away, everyone in Alaska will be able to buy their own "snow machine" instead of relying on the train.
Having lived in Alaska for 20 years, 1977-1997. I feel the need to clarify the money the citizenry receives. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in the mid '70s. The principal is untouchable and is invested in various means (stocks, bonds, etc.) Part of the dividends from these investments is distributed to the general population of Alaska and part is used to finance the state budget. The royalties the oil companies pay on their leases is in no means distributed directly to the people of Alaska.
Do you people honestly believe that a state governor can give money away without the approval of the state house and senate.
@54 -
Yes. I saw the governor of Texas give away some cash to a homeless man some years ago. It was his own money.
It was also a shameless publicity stunt.
Clearly, a governor CAN give money away without the approval of state house and senate.
But SHAREHOLDERS actually buy stocks. They actually contribute monetarily. So, if you do nothing to contribute to society financially in Alaska, you’re still getting a check. Simply for the mere fact that you live in Alaska you are going to get a check from the lease on the oil – even though you may not pay any taxes in that state or federal taxes. Children who do not work or earn a salary and pay no taxes get one of those checks as well. How many stockholders do you know get a dividend check without someone actually buying stock??? Living in a state does not make you automatically a “shareholder” . I don’t see how you think redistributing the money from the lease back to every citizen is not the same as “nationalizing” or “socializing” the profits. How is that different?
Obama is not “taking” from the rich and “giving to” the poor and middle class because the poor and middle class still pay taxes. He’s adjusting the tax rate. It’s not like he’s making it so all the profits of the uber rich are going to go to someone who makes less than $50,000 a year. Because the person who makes less than $50,000 is still paying Federal taxes – and if they live in a state that has a state tax, then a state tax as well.
Some of you are acting like Obama is saying that the only people who are going to pay any taxes are the riches 1 percent. That’s not what he’s saying. He’s wanting to readjust the tax system back to the level it was at under Bill Clinton. That’s not “spreading the wealth” – that’s taking the burden off of the Middle Class who end up paying the lion’s share of the taxes BECAUSE multinational corporations (that are treated as an “individual”) and those making between, let’s say $500,000. (I actually think $250,000 isn’t all that much money in this economy that includes multi-billionaires, and he should raise that amount to about $500,000.00) to billions of dollars have tax right offs, offshore accounts, loopholes and a variety of other accounting schemes that, at the end of the day, allow them to not have to pay their share of the tax burden.
Whenever you cry for the wealthiest 1 percent among us about paying taxes, you never talk about all of those other line items that, in reality, we all know allows them to avoid paying most of the taxes all together.
We all get how the game is rigged. The richest of the rich just keep sidestepping the issue because they know they had a good thing going under George Bush and they don’t want someone like Obama coming along and spoiling their cash cow.
If you actually made money under George Bush that may not necessarily be because of his tax plan, but because you had a good ride for the last 8 years. Lots of people said the same thing when Bill Clinton was in office. The amount of money that each of us makes and how well we do is not necessarily dependent on who is in office. If that were the case, then god help us – we’d be TOTALLY screwed!
what is the point in being rich if you have to pay taxes? Americans should look to the China model. There the burgeoning entrepreneurial class has assured through their willing contributions to the public coffers that food safety is paramount, that the environment remains pristine, that worker and human rights are respected... truly a model for the oil industry!
I forget, how many weeks again will all the oil in Alaaka last?
"1: To hire an American oil company to drill. Workers and company is American so all value held in the oil is transferred across the oil workers and distributed to other Americans yada yada yada. The downside is that while Alaska owns the resource, Alaska may not see the profit. Profit is not guaranteed to enter into Alaska's economy. It can escape with the drilling company"
Last time i checked BP or British Petroleum the largest oil company in alaska is a British company. Must might want to research something before you post it.
Simply for the mere fact that you live in Alaska you are going to get a check from the lease on the oil
This is of course, how Sa'udi Arabia works, as well. Al-Asqa indeed.
Isn't this all one country? Why don't we all get a check? Why don't all Americans get a cut of America's oil in Alaska? Maybe this is why Alaskans want independence.
is TK saying the government is giving the profits to BP?
You don't have to pay taxes to contribute to society financially. Every time you go buy groceries from the local grocery store, you're contributing to the financial welfare of the people who work there.
It's not really any different than the federal tax credit checks that Bush sent out. I don't recall anyone trying to call Bush a socialist for that.
The key difference between the Alaska fund and the taxes that Obama (and, honestly, probably McCain too) are going to raise is that in Alaska, the money is not taken from anyone, it is earned by investment, and then distributed evenly. Taxes, however, are taken from people in disproportionate amounts and then redistributed to other people in disproportionate amounts. The problem with the tax situation is that when you take from the rich, you don't know if that rich guy is someone who inherited a trust fund and does nothing to earn his money, or someone who built up his fortune the hard way. And when you give money to the poor, how do you tell if the money is going to someone who has worked hard but just fell on hard luck, or someone who's lazy and just takes free rides on the welfare train?
Of course, I still have yet to meet anyone who can satisfactorily convinice me of why the government (Democrat OR Republican) should be doing that job in the first place. To say that one party or the other is somehow worse than the other is kind of missing the bigger picture.
Might as well. Are there really any significant differences between states anymore? We can just cross that one off the Bill of Rights, too. Pretty soon, we'll just have to call it the Bill of Right.
Digging out natural resources so that they can be sold off, used up and put into the atmosphere/soil/water, and then handing out a small proportion of the money to the locals to stop them complaining about the rape of their land. Hmmm - what a great way to run a state/country/world. Good job Palin, you're an inspiration.
Don't know you SamF, but States rights? Conservatives calling for States rights while working for a Marriage Amendment or trying to criminalize abortion nationwide, don't make me laugh. We would still have slaves, or Jim Crow, or separate but unequal if it was up to the states. Thanks, but NO THANKS.
technically, couldn't one state -say Texas?- declare war on Alaska and just TAKE that oil?
"Digging out natural resources so that they can be sold off, used up and put into the atmosphere/soil/water, and then handing out a small proportion of the money to the locals to stop them complaining about the rape of their land. Hmmm - what a great way to run a state/country/world. Good job Palin, you're an inspiration."
Padster,
So i take it you hide a horse to work not drive a car. You also dont use any plastic's or any petroleum based products.
TK the Nate,
Did you have any personal stake in this discussion that you'd like to disclose?
tk, odd how u only post in this one thread...hmm, leads one to believe your motives are less than altruistic.
Yes, that Sarah is either stupid or a shrew(d). In Alaska, the Alaskans own the resources, so get money for the oil and pay no taxes. Now, under W's admin , the government has bailed out and bought part ownership in some banks. In both cases, it is socialism or nationalization of business. It 's ok when it works to their favor or helps big business, but they sure despise the thought of national health care . It's just like the GOP, and the evangelical right always preaching their patriotism ans morals ,when it turns out they have a long way to go before they should think they are the great examples they perceive themselves to be. It seems to me quite a few of the right and evangelical preachers have had sex scandals and misappropriation of funds or unreported gifts/income.
jst cn't gt y ppl t d ny rsrch s, 'll gv y hnt,Ggl lsk Prmnnt Fnd.Thr y mrns wll gt bttr xplntn f hw smrt r lgsltr ws bfr w llwd ny l t b drlld nd shppd dwn th ppln.ll f y wh hv prblm wth th fnd nd t's dstbtn r jst nvs f lskns.
TK. "you people","morons" and a snotty tone don't work well here. If you can't explain clearly, concede the point.
TK,
That's two rude posts in this thread. Take a couple of days off.
Educationally disadvantaged types like Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and their vociferous adherents can’t be expected to know the true meaning of the word socialism. To them, socialism is synonymous with anti-American, treason, tyranny, Arab, Muslim, Godlessness, evil or whatever else they imagine it to be. But surely John McCain and his better informed surrogates must know that the governments of our closest allies—Britain, Canada, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Holland and Israel, to name some—all have well-entrenched socialistic components, like universal health care and retirement plans. And aren’t our own Social Security, Medicare, NASA, National Park Service and mighty Armed
Forces all government-funded socialistic programs? And how about Sarah Palin’s proposed $45 billion program for special-needs children? Isn’t that pure socialism?
The “vulgarization” of American politics, as noted by Peggy Noonan, would be more aptly described as rabble ignorance.