Campaign Trail

Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 07:13am on 22 Oct 2008, eloquentOD wrote:

  I think that this is an excellent question, and observation, you have made regarding how the concept of "socialism" is viewed and understood in the US! For the record, I believe socialism is probably mistaken as a political philosophy. But it is still a valid philosophical position to take on political and economic questions. If I do take it, someone may disagree with me. But why the venom? Why does Joe the "plumber" want to protect himself against paying higher tax on an amount of money ($250,000) that he will most likely never earn? One answer, which has been canvassed by some in the press of late, is that he wants to retain the dream that he might some day make that sort of money, and, by golly, he doesn't want to have to "spread" it around if that happens! The Republicans excel at peddling that (false) dream. So yes, it's selfishness on the part of Joe. But it's curiously misguided. Like your trucker, Joe may be shooting himself in the foot: in the long meantime before he ever actually earns a quarter of a million dollars annually, Joe would have better health care, etc., if he were willing to endorse policies that -- like all taxation does, as you point out -- "spread" the wealth. And that is distinguishable from "socialism".

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 07:13am on 22 Oct 2008, Leinsteroblast wrote:

  I would certainly agree that perhaps people in the United States are unsure as to what Socialism is. There is a stigma applied to that word in the states, and as a result even open liberals never use it to describe their policies.
  
  Funny considering that America's biggest ally in the War on Terror, was Britain which is governed by a quasi-socialist party.
  
  This to me just spells of uneducatedness and ignorance of policies on the part of Americans. But I wouldn't blame them, I would point the blame at the overwhelming amount of right-wing media there.

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 07:34am on 22 Oct 2008, KermitTheForg wrote:

  The current talk of socialism is baffling, and I can only assume that it has taken root because of the many months Republicans have already spent assuring Americans that Obama's and the Democrats' plan is to tax poor working people, which is the opposite of Obama's stated aim. So instead of seeing the wealthy being punished for ruining the economy, they hear "taxes" and worry it will be their burden to bear.
  
  Yet for all the harping on that line from pundits and the media, McCain's polls have only moved about a point. The public outcry may only be from the loyal partisans who still trust the Republican Party.

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 08:03am on 22 Oct 2008, Merthyrmiddleeast wrote:

  One of the most openly socialist things any government can do is pour billions of pounds into banks and take a stake in them.
  
  Any governments around the world taken that type of nationalising action recently? Ho hum...

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 08:34am on 22 Oct 2008, WebPendragon wrote:

  As a (European style) Conservative I am obviously no fan of Socialism.However like nearly all Europeans I accept the need for a National Health Service and strong social safety nets.America is different in the sense that Historicaly,it has never really needed Socialism.
  
  America has been so fortunate in it's vast Natural Resources that there has been plenty to go round.US Governments in the 19th Centuary gave away free farms in the West (a rather Socialist measure ! ) there was always room to expand and to build houses cheaply.
  
  Another factor in the past was that immigrant families and communities practised a form of primitive Socialism and supported each other in times of need.
  
  Of course those days have gone now,America has discovered that resources are indeed finate and her settled population is now far more individualistic and less inclined to help others.As in Europe Community and Family structues are breaking down.
  
  Americans may soon find that a European level of State intervention may be necessary to sustain a healthy society in the 21st Centuary. America's is now entering middle-age and may need a bit more help from her Government.

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 08:40am on 22 Oct 2008, IrisRainbows wrote:

  Accurate across the United States, though it is worth mentioning that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist, and has won consistently by wide margins.

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 09:39am on 22 Oct 2008, rushlevin wrote:

  first about 40% of americans don't pay federal taxes. so, obama wants to tax joe the plumber to spread the wealth (his own words)
  ok don't use the s word call it welfare.
  the one thing I do agree with obama on is if there is a draft, women get drafted too. us women want to be the same as men.
  
  other than that, I haven't drank the kool-aid,
  like most of the MSM.

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 10:30am on 22 Oct 2008, lordBeddGelert wrote:

  Never mind the 's-word', the venon attached to the 'l-word' [whisper it, liberal] is pretty intense. Er, why ??

  Complain about this comment

• 9. At 10:32am on 22 Oct 2008, AmericanSportFan wrote:

  Here is what is happen, there are partisans in the GOP trying paint Barak as a Socialist with muslim tendencies which to my understanding is an oxymoron. It is my understanding that socialist and marxist do not have anything good to say about religion. So if OBama is a socialist there is no way he could be a muslim. This is a blatant example of fear mongering tactics that conservititives have been using here in the United States to maintain their grip on power. Keep the ignorantand fearful, make ideas that are helpful sound like bad ones, and make it seem you're a man of the people when your in reality your a man of the fatcats. What there strategy has been all along. The Republican don't care about Joe Six Pack or Joe Cool, they only present themselves as such in order to get the average citizen to vote against their own interests. Disgracefull.

  Complain about this comment

• 10. At 12:45pm on 22 Oct 2008, AndyW35 wrote:

  I was wondering this myself and agree with the puzzlement in the original article but having read that and the excellent posts above I think I understand it better.
  
  It almost certainly is to do with the "dream" and that no cap should be placed on that dream, if it happens, by sharing out the wealth. This is why the bankers were allowed to make very large amounts of money, but when they did not reach the final dream the bailout was so widely dismissed as sharing the taxpayers wealth.
  
  So when Obama talks about sharing the wealth then moderate Republicans say socialist and the extremists, such as Michell Malkin, say Marxist and compare him to Mugabe and Zimbabwe (no, I am not making this up, check out her spittle flecked site).
  
  What Obama is about is not socialism or Marxism or Communism but in fact caring Conservatism. The prospect of caring conservatism is something the right wing in the USA have no truck with even though they are largely Christian.
  
  So the Republicans are spreading fear uncertainty and doubt whilst the Democrats are spreading hope. The problem is of course that the "dream" ironically is based on hope so it is no wonder Obama is doing so well in the poles.
  
  One final thought, in the UK the left and right parties have gravitated both to the middle so that they are becoming more and more alike. Will the USA ever beat this path or will they get more and more extreme? Extreme political parties never have worked, either left or right.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 11. At 1:49pm on 22 Oct 2008, Desertann wrote:

  Here's a point of view that might surprise you. I am a daughter of immigrants who fled a communist country. My parents came to the US without a penny in their pockets. Hard education and hard work lifted my parents, and myself out of poverty. I am living the American Dream and it is achievable for anyone. All Americans know that class constraints don't exist here as it does in Europe. Anyone can realize the American Dream. But when we hear talk of "spreading the wealth," that implies that if you are lazy, you will be given a free handout at the expense of those who have worked for their success. Obama's plan is to give a tax credit to Americans that don't pay taxes and to tax even further, those who pay the most taxes. That's why Socialism is so despised here.

  Complain about this comment

• 12. At 2:46pm on 22 Oct 2008, RealisticJimmy wrote:

  
  #8 Have to agree with you.
  
  Liberal is the most misused word in American politics (well, until the recent exessive use of "socialist"). A lot of it has to do with the Cold War, I think. Especially the use of socialist as some kind of slur.
  
  In economic terms of course, a socialist isn't a liberal. Apparently Obama is the most liberal Senator in the US Senate and a socialist at the same time. Impressive feat. In fact in economic terms a liberal is the same as what is commonly referred to as a "conservative". That is, favouring a laisse faire "small government" approach to the economy. The opposite would be the traditional economic "left" which would be "big government" intervention in the economy, socialists, etc.
  
  In "social" terms (individual liberty, etc), social liberalism is the opposite of social conservatism. Social liberalism would be about minimal government interference in peoples lives and giving people greater freedoms. Social conservatism is about "big government" in peoples personal lives and is on the authoritarian side of the scale.
  
  Perhaps both "liberal" and "conservative" are misleading terms then.
  
  Arguably, therefore, the part of the political spectrum that would be closest to the "American Ideal" would be economically and socially liberal.
  
  Oddly that would be neither the Republicans (especially the "modern" Republican party which is a long way away from Lincolns GOP) or the Democrats. It would probably be some form of libertarianism...
  

  Complain about this comment

• 13. At 2:49pm on 22 Oct 2008, Schwerpunkt wrote:

  3. KermitTheForg wrote:
  
  "So instead of seeing the wealthy being punished for ruining the economy, they hear "taxes" and worry it will be their burden to bear."
  
  This presupposes that solely by virtue of being financially comfortable there is asome 'guilt' atatched. Not everyone wealthy is in the banking sector you know.
  
  Why should those who strive and work and make money be punished by having more of their earnings garnished and those who do not strive and work hard be rewarded? THAT is why Americans view socialism, and by extension Obama's "spread the wealth" idea with distrust.
  
  Healthcare should be affordable but that does not mean it has to be run by the government. It may be considered a responsibility of government in Europe but I prefer to keep my government limited to those traditional areas of its responsibility.

  Complain about this comment

• 14. At 3:30pm on 22 Oct 2008, frayedcat wrote:

  McCarthyism. The S-word scares Americans because they want to keep every penny of their money and become rich like the guy in the big house down the street (who is probably living on credit), and because deep in the recesses of stupid minds they remember the red scare which was posed as an INVASION of America. IE, THEY the communists (the Russians) were going to TAKE US OVER and force us all to be 'communists', and then they would take our lovely stuff. Wonder if the wealthy were/are behind that bit of PR?

  Complain about this comment

• 15. At 4:35pm on 22 Oct 2008, tuairimiocht wrote:

  Desertann, I hate to burst your bubble, but social mobility in the US is worryingly low.
  
  Social mobility is a measure of how well, on average, a poor child does after reaching adulthood. In the US, this indicator is at the same level as in the UK. Here this fact is a cause of consternation, and many politicians would like mobility at Scandanavian levels.
  
  For more info on some of these worrying trends, the OECD has produced a report:
  
  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d53e9ca2-9fd3-11dd-a3fa-000077b07658.html
  
  Time perhaps, for some north-European-style social democracy?

  Complain about this comment

• 16. At 5:41pm on 22 Oct 2008, GHBRich wrote:

  What is amazing about this is that if Obama were an English politician he would be considered right of centre, certainly not a socialist!
  
  Among other beliefs in his book, the Audacity of Hope, is support for the death penalty and a personal conviction that abortion is wrong (although, admittedly he supports freedom for individuals to choose)
  
  Doesn't sound awfully left wing to me...

  Complain about this comment

• 17. At 5:42pm on 22 Oct 2008, finalamerican wrote:

  As an American I can speak to this question. Americans love their freedoms. American's love their Constitution. American's love their fundamental rights.
  Now, I ask you, what part of robbing from the rich to give to the poor fits with these values? they are irreconcilable. I am a 'poor' college student. i don't get everything I want, because I can't afford everything I want. But, I refuse to take money from somebody else's wallet to pay for my life. I refuse to be an Un-American crybaby, and use class warfare to get what I want. That is the American thing to do. Sure, we should support some people who absolutely can't make it, we should HELP them get on their own two feet, and they they should take it from there. We shouldn't do everything for them, and such programs should be voluntarily supported, not legislatively required. The idea that the government is going to require us to take money out of our wallets and give it to others is tyrannical. I'm all for the causes, and I'm all for charity. I'm totally against governmental tyranny. I am an American, and I'm proud of it.

  Complain about this comment

• 18. At 5:50pm on 22 Oct 2008, ventingspleen wrote:

  The interpretation of the words "Socialist / Socialism" in the American Lingua, like most things is shallow and unintelligent.
  
  "Socialist" Bashers that seem to form the core of McCain csupporters seem to ignore the fact that in Europe, socialism has by enlarge insure there is a public healthcare system, whilst not perfect, still universal.

  Complain about this comment

• 19. At 6:03pm on 22 Oct 2008, ron519098 wrote:

  It's not the use or misuse of the word "socialist" which worries me most about Americans. It's their use and misuse of the "L" word, particularly by those misguided folks who seem to inhabit the heartland states of "middle America". After all their nation was founded on, what may be described as "liberal" values.........that every man is born equal, that the pursuit of happiness is a core believe (not wealth mind) and that established religion shall not play any role in the state.
  
  America seems to be at a crossroads in so many ways and we see the political right mounting a rearguard action of venom and vehemence that seems doesn't seem to be registering at all with the US media, so congratulations to Matthew Price for bringing this subject up.

  Complain about this comment

• 20. At 6:37pm on 22 Oct 2008, sepdet wrote:

  One thing I'm constantly struck by is that America, particularly political America, tends to posterize everything into black and white. For a long time it took that binary opposition so literally that it divided its people in that fashion, and while the prejudices have become muted the assumptions are still there: ergo, Tiger Woods and Obama are defined as black, despite being squarely "both." American narratives constantly stress "us versus them," good guys and bad guys. One would think Claude Levi-Strauss, father of the "binary oppositions" theory, had been born here.
  
  As a result, we've finally hit a stage where "Republican" means "us" and "Democrat" means "them," even though the U.S. has gravitated towards a two-party system almost since day one.
  
  Much of the last century, as another commenter noted, was dominated by the Cold War. "Us" was the U.S., and "them" was the communists -- the socialists. (Even I, fairly well educated by American standards, have trouble defining the difference between the two, although I have a gut feeling that communism:socialism::republic:democracy.) That perception lingers. McCarthyism is dead, but socialism is still perceived as the system of the enemy, anti-American, dangerous.
  
  When a worldview divides everything into us (good) and them (bad), there is no room for a middle term.

  Complain about this comment

• 21. At 7:04pm on 22 Oct 2008, karenbme wrote:

  Two words about the concept of socialism in America--Cold War. In addition to the cold war American culture is based around the idea individualism as manifested in "The American Dream"
  
  As a 24 year old American who was 5 when the Berlin wall fell, I really see the venom aimed at socialist ideals as a generational affliction. My parents generation grew up in a time when "socialists" and "communists" were a very real threat and a danger to our very existence. The fear of socialism that was engrained in our culture for 40+ years isn't going to go away over night.
  
  Likewise, the idea of the American dream--that one can pull oneself up by the bootstraps and everyone can succeed if they're willing to work for it--is fundamentally opposed to social services. The thinking is what's mine is mine, and if x, y, and z groups just work for it, they can have the same level of success. 200 years ago this may have been true, but this idea of the american dream is fundamentally a myth today. Many will point out rare examples like Bill Gates, etc. but the rising cost of education, the lowest real wages in decades and extensive deregulation have created an increasingly static society.

  Complain about this comment

• 22. At 7:37pm on 22 Oct 2008, AAlvinTwiningham wrote:

  Right-wing Republicans like to hold up the rugged pioneer individualism as an American virtue and call anyone that advocates safety nets or suggests that corporations might want to pitch in and pay taxes a socialist.
  
  What they blissfully forget is that rugged individuals like Boone and Crocket became famous because they survived without a net, it wasn't the norm!
  
  Do we want a society where we help our neighbor up when he trips, or one where we leave him for the wolves because it is "unamerican" (i.e. inconvenient) to help him out?

  Complain about this comment

• 23. At 7:56pm on 22 Oct 2008, StephenDerry wrote:

  People, especially Americans, have a habit of attaching all sorts of connotations, ideology and prejudice onto words which are really quite straightforward.
  
  Socialism is about society, the idea that a government (generally) looks after its people instead of (generally) expecting them to look after themselves. Are you all in this together, or is it every man for himself? It it too often confused with Marxism, Communism, even (ridiculously) Stalinism!
  
  And liberalism is about liberty, the freedoms upon which America is supposedly founded. In many ways the right has a vested interest in freedoms the left want to restrict - freedom from big government, freedom from taxes, freedom to carry arms, so "liberal" can be a somewhat paradoxical way to describe anti-conservatives.
  
  That's liberty and fraternity covered, the corresponding equality is something that America will continue to struggle with as long as it continues to demonise social principles. If government leaves people to look after themselves, the poor will stay poor while the rich get richer. 'Twas ever thus.

  Complain about this comment

• 24. At 7:57pm on 22 Oct 2008, bluejay60 wrote:

  The current campaign speech by Gov. Palin says something like:
  
  Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers
  
  But 40% of Americans don't pay taxes
  
  That's welfare/socialism/redistribution, etc.
  
  that encourages people not to work, etc.
  
  
  Maybe someone can correct me, but I think
  
  1) that's not welfare, 'welfare' is an entirely separate government aid program that was greatly scaled back from 1980 - 2000. using the word welfare is a red herring (irrelevent distraction).
  
  2) workers pay taxes and get tax breaks, non-workers are out of the picture. At this time of rising unemployment and rising cost of living I doubt anyone will say "I'll pay $500 less taxes next year so I'll work less! maybe I'll get lucky and lose my job hot-diggity!"
  
  3) taxes may not be owed by millions of americans - but that doesn't mean they are not taxpayers. We are ALL subject to IRS rules. When I was a student for a couple of years my income was so low that no taxes were withheld (kept from my paycheck by my employer to make installment payments to the US government). However, most workers - even many who don't "pay" taxes - have taxes withheld but at tax time show deductions that result in no tax paid. We should adjust our withholding each year with the W-8 form so the money withheld leaves us at tax time either owing very little or getting refunded very little (a big refund means you are getting money back that could have been in your bank or spent all year)
  
  
  So her comments about Sen. Obama and taxes seem wrong, but coming from a state that uses that most dreaded tax for republicans, taxes on resource extraction (businesses and employers), to give each Alaskan a nice annual $1,000 or so stipend, maybe Gov. Palin really does know redistribution of wealth when she sees it...

  Complain about this comment

• 25. At 8:59pm on 22 Oct 2008, lemonsfield wrote:

  Socialists, communists, liberals - these are just *bogeymen* to hate. All political organisations on all sides use similar terms to gather support by having a group to rally against, to create an *us* and *them*position.
  
  I've always liked the saying *empty vessels make the most noise* - in this election it seems to me that those that are (reported by the media as) the most vehement, actually have nothing really to say, nothing to justify their position when you really look into it.
  
  ...some of the posts here and on the other election blogs are similarly vehement and similarly *empty*.

  Complain about this comment

• 26. At 9:07pm on 22 Oct 2008, ladyhillary wrote:

  I'm from the caribbean and now a US resident so I've been saying the same thing you do. I've been asking people, "At this point in time, do you have a say in how your taxes are used? Can you tell the government, I don't want it spent on roads, spend it on welfare instead?" It's just so crazy and I have to say, when I see the Republican base members jumping on stuff like that without thinking, it just makes them look so ignorant to the global community.
  
  I keep thinking, "Why did I emigrate to the US instead of GB at times like this." It's like they all share one brain which is malfunctioning, the neurons are just not firing properly. Everyday I get more incredulous when I watch the tv. Do they even crack a dictionary to find out what socialism means?
  
  I do agree with you, people here are basically selfish, it's all about this american dream which is all that you can possibly acquire and hoard. I notice that this is a country of apearances. As far as most people are concerned and all these "christian values" are just words, a facade.
  
  This is supposed to be such a christian nation and the Republicans are supposedly the bastion of christian values, yet do you hear how they boo when McCain talks about spreading the wealth around? Way to go christians. Nice way to imitate Christ. You're such a shining example to all other religions.
  
  The rest of the world is observing this appalling spectacle that the general elections have become and I wonder how long will it take for the rest of the world to regain some respect for America after this has passed. Probably if Obama gets elected because he's behaved in a gentlemanly manner unlike the other party with their rabble rousing. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

  Complain about this comment

• 27. At 9:40pm on 22 Oct 2008, timohio wrote:

  I agree with 12. RealisticJimmy. It's a remnant of both the Cold War and McCarthyism. For a generation the public was fed a constant diet of (call it what it was) propaganda. Communism was evil and would destroy the American way of life (vaguely defined). Socialism put you on the slippery slope to communism. There was a period when being labeled a "fellow traveler" could cause you to be blacklisted and lose your job. So people sort of quarantined their minds about certain topics.
  
  It's now at a point where some people don't think beyond the labels to ask what socialism is and why is it bad. It became almost like religious dogma.
  
  In addition, with the neo-conservative revival beginning with Reagan, people were fed the idea that government was the problem, that taxes were bad, that capitalism was the solution to all of the country's problems, that you deserved to keep every dollar you earned. Very Ayn Rand sort of ideas. If you tell people that kind of thing long enough and if you shout down and stigmatize any contrary opinions as virtually treasonable, eventually people just stop considering alternative ideas. I would bet than many Americans would be surprised at the number of "socialist" political parties that are firmly entrenched in European countries usually considered friends and allies.

  Complain about this comment

• 28. At 10:58pm on 22 Oct 2008, APbbforum wrote:

  Socialism is when you don't rely on your own income to pay for your needs but sponge off other people. Like when you get other people to pay for your $150,000 wardrobe for instance.
  
  It's when you don't own anything, not even the clothes off your own back.
  
  Apparently they're going to be sold off for charity after the election - perhaps on ebay. I know which item I'm bidding for...
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 29. At 11:31pm on 22 Oct 2008, StephenDerry wrote:

  APbbforum, that's not socialism, that parasitism. Of course if you have welfare, you will probably attract parasites looking for a free ride, but you cannot argue that capitalism doesn't have its parasites either? The difference is that capitalist parasites are already wealthy enough to feed and house themselves.
  
  As things stand now, there are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of poor Americans working very hard, very long hours, for a pittance in wages, which is barely enough to pay their rent or feed their family. Giving those people a little extra help doesn't make them parasites, they work a damn sight harder than your "successful" Americans, but hard work does not always automatically translate into success, only a privileged few can access the funds or the knowhow to set up their own business or secure a well-paid job.
  
  There are also a not insignificant number of Americans who are ready and willing to work but cannot find a job at all, particularly in the current climate. Is it their own fault for not being educated or skilled enough?
  
  If a few parasites take advantage of the system, it is not like they are going to be living a life of luxury, there are hoops they will have to continually jump through, and they would be a whole lot better off just getting a job and working. The number of deserving and needy people helped will far outweigh the (statistically insignificant) number of undeserving parasites. The difficulty for conservatives is understanding the difference between them.

  Complain about this comment

• 30. At 00:54am on 23 Oct 2008, AQdeCdeUS wrote:

  Is this why "socialism" is a bad word? Because it implies giving someone a free ride, and that (for many) is a non-American (US) concept?
  
  I think your conclusions are correct, that many Americans do believe in the American Dream, but not that we are "selfish as a society."
  
  I think socialism is a bad word because, Americans perceive (perhaps wrongly) that our economic success is due to our free market principles. This is all part of our national myth.
  
  As an American expat living in Argentina, I can appreciate the American Dream, there really is so much opportunity in the U.S. for anyone who is willing to work hard. This certainly isn't true in many other corners of the world.
  
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 31. At 03:31am on 23 Oct 2008, ladybetty19 wrote:

  Americans have a long history of being
  taught by their leaders to reason in certain illogical ways, partly to justify and hide those elements in their history that are not noble, to say the least. One of the reasons that 'socialism' is considered a bad word has to do with the culture which has promoted anti-communism as a religious crusade. One of the major arguments against Communism, and therefore socialism is related to its association with atheism. The right-wing has always used 'Christianity' as an excuse to undermine progressive ideas, rather than examining them on their merits, and they have been extremely aggressive and highly successful in creating religious taboos which
  appeal to a lot of mean-spirited and ignorant people who even vote against their own interests. It's significant that presidential candidates always have to affirm their Christianity.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 32. At 03:56am on 23 Oct 2008, JayGermaine wrote:

  In understanding the word socialism as used in this country, by the younger generation in America, it seems to be the answer to all evils about healthcare. They look at it as being a liberal way of providing as does the UK, Canada, and a number of other EU Nations. Although I don't see it as our answer, for the number of world residence to come the US for medical treatment, I feel it would eventually reduce our ability to be cutting edge, and to provide comparably rapid care.
  
  But in the terms of the majority even if accepting the PC method of expression, (a mistake) as it relates to Barack Obama and associates, lets call it what everyone will understand. Marxist Communism. That' what Obama's Mother was, and his Grand Mother, Stepfather and his mentor who introduced him to the self admitted Marxist and terrorist Bill Ayers. Considerable more frightening than just socialism. HMmm?
  

  Complain about this comment

• 33. At 04:04am on 23 Oct 2008, JayGermaine wrote:

  As I have already input my comments, I do want to make one more point. I am not a member of the far right, nor am I a Christian but do consider myself a beleiver in God. But both that and familial ties to eastern Europe and Russia and my reading of history as it was, not as it has been rewritten, has taught me well. My wife and her family were born and later exposed to Castro's version.

  Complain about this comment

• 34. At 05:00am on 23 Oct 2008, denoir wrote:

  First of all those claiming that Obama is a socialist are quite right - a social democrat to be precise. His political positions are remarkably similar to the ones that of social democrats here in Sweden.
  
  So why do some people consider socialism to be a very negative term? It's quite simple:
  Socialism is based on the idea that it is highly moral for a state to use force or the threat of force against innocent people to take money from them and give to others chosen by the state.
  
  That's not all however - central to socialism is the maxim "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" that in essence represents an inverted morality where ability is punished and lack of ability rewarded. Socialists consider need to give automatic entitlement to the work and wealth of others. In essence this means that some individuals are forced to work for the benefit of others.
  
  This undermines the principle that all individuals have equal rights. Under socialism some people have the right to consume and other people have the duty to produce. When wealth is redistributed by force individual rights vanish.
  
  Finally what I presume that many find appalling about socialism is that the ultimate argument it gives is simply a threat of force. If it had rational arguments for the moral order it imposes the use of the state's monopoly on violence would not be needed to produce the results they want. Don't forget that the 'spreading of wealth' that McCain criticizes relies primarily on the state having guns and using them as means of persuasion.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 35. At 08:38am on 23 Oct 2008, lewvdc wrote:

  I find the interpretation of liberalism, socialism and communism from Americans quite entertaining. Liberalism is in my home country, the Netherlands, something we would position on the right of the political spectrum. Liberalism is opposed to state intervention and advocates free enterprise and market and individualism.
  
  Socialism is opposed to liberalism and wants a government to look after it's people. It is rooted in the labour rights movement, advocates strong state intervention and suggests that all people are equal and should get an equal share of wealth and resources. In Marx's model socialism is the phase between capitalism and communism.
  
  Communism is an totalitarian model that is in fact a dictatorship. The state is the only authority and is ruled by an elite. This is quite unlike Marx theory who said that communism is the end phase of the revolution and is a classless society and makes the state or in general the idea of authority redundant.
  
  To suggest that Obama is a socialist or a communist is silly. I would position him as a social-democrat which has nothing to do with liberalism, socialism or communism. Social-democracy is a model which tries to balance between capitalism and socialism. It accepts that people are not equal but are given by law equal rights.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 36. At 11:33am on 23 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

  "Socialism" is just another trigger word used by the Republicans to scare swing voters.
  
  Previous posts have adequately defined the difference between a "socialist" - which Obama is not, and a "social democrat" which he is.
  
  If Obama is elected and puts more money into education perhaps more people would understand this.
  
  
  Peace and dictionaries

  Complain about this comment

• 37. At 11:37am on 23 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

  #31 ladybetty19 wrote:
  "One of the reasons that 'socialism' is considered a bad word has to do with the culture which has promoted anti-communism as a religious crusade. One of the major arguments against Communism, and therefore socialism is related to its association with atheism. The right-wing has always used 'Christianity' as an excuse to undermine progressive ideas, rather than examining them on their merits, and they have been extremely aggressive and highly successful in creating religious taboos. It's significant that presidential candidates always have to affirm their Christianity."
  
  
  This is an excellent point, especially the last sentence. Of what political relevance is a politician's faith, unless he is planning to act to promote the interests or beliefs of his faith. If this were to be the case I hold he would be unfit to hold office in a melting pot country like the USA.
  
  
  Also regarding the socialism thing ... Obama is not a socialist.

  Complain about this comment

• 38. At 11:51am on 23 Oct 2008, StroszekBassist wrote:

  The amount of ignorance displayed in some of these comments is startling, and when you consider that most of them are coming from the richest country in the world, it becomes quite an indictment of the US education system.
  
  I'm not saying we're perfect in the UK - it's quite easy to leave school not having been taught the differences between various political ideologies, or even to have been told their names - but at least we don't have this "our way is the only way" style propaganda that must be peddled in US schools. The idea that socialism is about helping "lazy" people is ridiculously wide of the mark - it's about "society" instead of "individualism"; trying to help each other instead of just ourselves.
  
  Of course, Americans need to be brainwashed in this way, because it's the only way to stop them realising that their country is the world's biggest perpetrator of war crimes and human rights abuse. This is how their government gets away with their foreign policy that basically amounts to "as long as America is alright, the rest of you can go to hell". More so than even the UK, the US is run for the benefit of the rich, and what better way to serve their selfish needs than to keep selfishness as the main part of "the American way"?
  
  America needs to let go of "the dream" because selfishness is what has led to economic collapse, and it is what will lead us to environmental collapse and diminishing food sources. It's time America learned about sharing and cooperation, things which are not part of the American dream.

  Complain about this comment

• 39. At 12:21pm on 23 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

  Post#34; denoir wrote: "Socialism is based on the idea that it is highly moral for a state to use force or the threat of force against innocent people to take money from them and give to others chosen by the state".
  
  This is absolute nonsense. Your mindless mischaracterization is utterly anathema to the principles of socialsm. Socialism does not involve force or the threat of force.
  
  In any case, under capitalism, government takes money from citizens in the form of taxes, and gives it to other citizens in the form of state services (education, etc.) and social welfare (pensions, etc.) - which is exactly what socialism does, albeit by means of a different economic model.
  
  So where's the beef?

  Complain about this comment

• 40. At 12:55pm on 23 Oct 2008, RomeStu wrote:

  38 StroszekBassist wrote
  "Of course, Americans need to be brainwashed in this way, because it's the only way to stop them realising that their country is the world's biggest perpetrator of war crimes and human rights abuse."
  
  I'm sorry to say that devalue a valid point about American intervention abroad and the USA's interesting approach to it's own recent history by use of sweeping exaggeration.
  
  If we are to debate sensibly, we must resist the temptation to shout loudly and throw metaphorical rocks, no matter how the other side behaves.
  
  This is why Obama is so successful as a candidate.
  
  Peace and history books

  Complain about this comment

• 41. At 3:53pm on 23 Oct 2008, englishmaninmadrid wrote:

  You can argue about the labels, but all countries are evidently somewhere between the extremes of total individual liberty and total collectivism. Taxes are a collectivist concept, progressive taxes even more so. Medicaid, medicare, social security and welfare are collectivist.
  
  Governments of one or the other stripe simply make adjustments to a country's position between the two poles. Universal health care or higher taxes would not make America "socialist", but they might make it "more socialist" than it is now. America, historically, has placed more emphasis than Europe on individual responsibility, and the right to succeed or fail. But Medicare, for example, violates these principles because America has decided that older people should have a certain guaranteed level of health cover. Making a decision to extend cover to other groups does not fundamentally change America, it merely adjusts the balance. And it is patently absurd to claim that raising taxes to the same level as at the beginning of the decade turns America into the Soviet Union.
  
  In my experience, many Americans are simply not aware of how people live in other countries, and therefore not able to judge the pros and cons of our different laws and culture. There is simply an assumption that the United States is the best of all possible worlds.
  
  Certainly, where health care is concerned, Americans ought to look long and hard at Europe. The German system, to take one, is universal, high quality, but expensive. The American system is not universal, has quality that is sometimes very high, but very variable, and is astronomically expensive.

  Complain about this comment

• 42. At 4:45pm on 23 Oct 2008, goulmike84 wrote:

  The US election is just full of extreme opinions and very little moderate, rational thinking. I am British but I was over in America for the 2004 election and it was just the same then. I loved every minute of it too.
  
  It's funny, because literally every American I met, talked with and made friends with, whether they were democrat, republican, swing- or non-voter, were mostly sane, rational thinking people, just like we are back here in the UK.
  
  Sure people zeroed in on my accent and made the odd crude joke about the war of Independence, etc, but it was all good fun!However when we talked of politics, and it couldn't be avoided really, there did seem to be a lack of understanding of concepts like socialism and liberalism, terms which my rght-wing, Bush-supporting friends liked to fire out as insults.
  
  There is too much pigeon-holing going on, and most of it without much sense or reason. Apparently, just because I was a fan of the NHS I was a 'socialist'! Being pro-choice and anti-death penalty made me a 'Liberal!' My first response was to laugh. My second was to explain that one, I support the NHS because I believe everyone should have access to health care and shouldn't be made to suffer because they can't pay, and two, I don't think the state should kill individuals as a punishment.
  
  Suddenly my opinions were valid and sensible, even if some people didn't agree with me. Fair enough. At least it stopped them from making another joke about the war for five minutes!
  
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 43. At 5:04pm on 23 Oct 2008, bluejay60 wrote:

  If I recall right, Eisenhower extended expansion of social policies and was a fiscal conservative despite new military and education initiatives. Obama seems about as "socialist" as Ike, or in the sense of 1st term tax cuts, as Kennedy.
  
  Certainly Obama is less of a central-control-economy communist that wage-and-price control Nixon.
  
  For good or bad, in economic and social policy terms, America will never become Russia, let alone Sweden, at least not under a President Obama. Assertions to the contrary are very exaggerated.

  Complain about this comment

• 44. At 6:39pm on 23 Oct 2008, Bloofs wrote:

  I too have wondered why working-class Americans and those on low incomes (who after all do have a vote) don't vote for candidates who are more socialist in outlook. If America is about self-interest, it follows it is in the interest of the large numbers of low earners not to vote for candidates who want tax breaks for the rich, and refuse to take interventionist measures to help the poor.
  
  As discussed above, it may be because of 'the dream' - if someone says 'actually I want the state to help me more' they are seen as a loser, a quitter, incapable of making their own dream. So it's a cultural issue. This may change when faced with the stark reality of an economic downturn. To be fair, Americans prided themselves on communities and people helping each other out, the 'pioneer spirit' rather than interventionist state measures. These communities are more fractured now.
  
  If poorer families want to make life easier for themselves, they have to start voting for 'socialist' candidates. They need to get over the pride issue.
  
  Having said that, in a two party democracy, who do you vote for? A sketch with Peter Cook once said:
  "In America, the Republicans are the equivalent of our Conservative Party, whereas the Democrats..... are the equivalent of our Conservative Party". Says it all, sadly.

  Complain about this comment

• 45. At 10:58pm on 23 Oct 2008, Larry1776 wrote:

  Sir,
  
  Asking why "Americans don't like socialism" is just ridiculous. It is like an American going to a football match at Old Trafford and asking, "why don't they just use their hands to pick up the ball and throw it into the goal"?
  
  The question is so ignorant and unlearned, at such an elementary level, the only thing more shocking than it being asked is the fact that the person asking the question is covering a major American presidential campaign!
  
  The United States was founded on liberty and freedom; liberty being the freedom succeed AND at the same time the freedom to fail. This produces equality of opportunity.
  
  Socialism is the equality of results, but not equality of opportunity. Socialism is the complete opposite of liberty and freedom, so it is the complete opposite of everything The United States was founded on and built up to be over the last 240 years. With socialism, there is no failure, no success, no economic or social mobility; just the safety of being wards of the state. If you call that safe at all.
  
  Non-Americans hold strong opinions about The United States, but lack even the most rudimental knowledge of what the United States is all about. The concepts and principles Americans hold dear are essential to understanding the United States.
  
  In America, the Republican Party believes in keeping the American Revolution going - liberty and freedom. The Democrat Party believes in scrapping that and trying socialism. That's it in a nutshell, and that's why so many Americans are against socialism.
  
  Lastly, and most importantly, readers need to understand that our Republican Party, the Right, has nothing to do with the European Right Wing. Thus, you can not think about American politics using The European Right as your model for understanding the American Right.
  
  Many readers here do just that, and think of Republicans as NAZI's. Yet as I just told you, Republicans are completely against socialism. (for those of you that don't know, NAZI is short for National Socialism). Calling anti-socialists socialists is just absurd, do you not see?
  
  Understanding these basic concepts about the American political climate is the difference between being begrudgingly knowledgeable or being pleasurably ignorant.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 46. At 01:06am on 24 Oct 2008, SONICBOOMER wrote:

  Some of you on here are just going to have to get used to the fact that people in other Western Democracies, are just as free as you are.
  
  Freedom comes in various forms, economic, social, of expression to name some.
  The US may have in some minor ways, more apparent freedom in some areas, whereas the others have effectively more elsewhere.
  
  Which all evens out as a general comparison in the end.
  Drop the exceptionalism, it looks and is absurd, the myth element of it has broadened as the world has changed.
  
  As stated, Mr Bush has been very 'socialist' recently as the very ultra capitalist, lightly regulated system of the last 30 years, is quite literally bust.
  Morally and financially.
  
  Or maybe it's just a big new area of traditional US 'Socialism', that is corporate welfare (for those at the top that is, the rest of you don't count as far as they are concerned).

  Complain about this comment

• 47. At 02:34am on 24 Oct 2008, bluejay60 wrote:

  45
  
  I'm an American too, Larry, and you seem have absorbed civics from a comic book or a recent a campaign mailing.
  
  Agreed that an understanding of basic concepts helps, please try to form one.
  
  1) There are no socialists in this election
  
  2) There has been some kind of safety net at the bottom level in America since Civil War (and I believe earlier) veteran's family pensions, state poor houses, etc.
  
  All that was formalized and federalized uner FDR after the last great economic upheaval into Social Security, Medicare, etc. They provide a bare-bones retirement to working Americans. The problems with them are due to lack of stewardship (no 'lockbox' in 2000 words) and some Republican's efforts to undo the New Deal (which was named as an update of TR's Square Deal). I for one am glad that my Mom's social security stipend, which helps with her nursung care, was not privatized by Bush so it could evaporate this year.
  
  Eisenhower respected and broadened access to New Deal programs. Was he a commie-pinko-socialist?
  
  The evolution from Square Deal (Republican Progressives, TR was one when they were already a dying breed) to New Deal (Democrat FDR and successors) is worth comparing to modern times.
  
  The Square Deal was a response to bring fairness (now there is a good basic American principle also held in high Commonwealth esteem) to the unregulated business practices of 'Gilded Age' monopolies and to the utter lack of food, housing and workplace regulation.
  
  The New Deal was a response to the terrible erosion of the poor and middle class by the Great Depression. No parasites there in the 'greatest generation'.
  
  Average Americans are now squeezed by:
  
  - unregulated or unethical lending and banking (mortgages as commodities with 3rd party commissioned sales, 'naked short sales', etc.) by some banks and extreme speculators gambling with our money
  
  - underregulated health care and monopolistic insurance (3rd party profit decisions moved out of doctor's hands with little attention to patient costs vs insurance profits)
  
  - Bush tax breaks that give far more back to the richest few, historically low upper tax rates for most of the 20th century.
  
  So it seems we've arrived at the need to update the Square Deal of TR to make a FAIR business environment for all American's investment, lending, and health care. That would fall under the topic of Wall Street regualtion and health care.
  
  And to start to pay down national debt and fund the whole of Federal programs, a revisiting of taxes. Obama proposes a small tax increase (end Bush tax cuts, I'll concede that as an increase) to people with over $250,000 taxable income (after deductions mind you), and a small tax break for those who make less and have to deal with lost investment, higher cost of living, etc. right now.
  
  So were TR and FDR and Ike a gang of Socialists? I don't think so, and neither is Obama.
  
  The only relevant "-ism" practiced by the Nazis, and by Stalin, Mao or Mussolini for that matter, was Totalitarianism.
  
  "Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, etc." was just words for window dressing. The "Socialist Workers" bit was a lie, just like the "People's Democratic Republic of___" bit was a lie.
  
  And just like calling American democrats (especially the large number of anti-deficit democrats, largely in the south) 'socialists' is a LIE.
  
  We are voting in a debate about what's fair, whether policies should continue or change (and of course who we trust is competent), and there is no socialist cliff anywhere near the ballot box.

  Complain about this comment

• 48. At 05:00am on 24 Oct 2008, chronophobe wrote:

  *In America, the Republican Party believes in keeping the American Revolution going - liberty and freedom. The Democrat Party believes in scrapping that and trying socialism. That's it in a nutshell, and that's why so many Americans are against socialism.*
  
  Here you have it -- Republicans are patriots fighting for essential American values, Democrats are anti-American cosmopolitans determined to tear down the the very foundations of the United States. A Republican candidate calls his or her opponent a *socialist* as a proxy for calling him or her *un-American.*
  
  I certainly respect ones right to believe what they will, but contemporary American neo-conservatism finds it necessary to vilify those who hold a different point of view. The intellectual root of this phenomenon in modern US politics is most probably the writings of Leo Strauss.
  
  The *socialist* epithet is one of the strategies of perpetual deception that the Republican intellegensia have very successfully deployed. By creating ideological enemies both at home and abroad, neo conservatives can draw on a passionate political response from a large segment of the population.
  
  Millions of voters will *transcend* their *narrow* or *selfish* material interests, and blinded by deception vote for a party who has consistently made their lives more difficult.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 49. At 06:43am on 24 Oct 2008, uk_ajf wrote:

  It seems to me that "Liberal" has not seen so much pejorative use during this election cycle. Perhaps "Socialist" is the GOP's best retort to Obamania?

  Complain about this comment

• 50. At 11:21am on 24 Oct 2008, The Notting Hill Hammer wrote:

  45 Larry1776 wrote:
  
  Asking why "Americans don't like socialism" is just ridiculous. It is like an American going to a football match at Old Trafford and asking, "why don't they just use their hands to pick up the ball and throw it into the goal"?
  
  The question is so ignorant and unlearned, at such an elementary level, the only thing more shocking than it being asked is the fact that the person asking the question is covering a major American presidential campaign!
  
  The United States was founded on liberty and freedom; liberty being the freedom succeed AND at the same time the freedom to fail. This produces equality of opportunity.
  
  Socialism is the equality of results, but not equality of opportunity. Socialism is the complete opposite of liberty and freedom, so it is the complete opposite of everything The United States was founded on and built up to be over the last 240 years. With socialism, there is no failure, no success, no economic or social mobility; just the safety of being wards of the state. If you call that safe at all.
  
  Non-Americans hold strong opinions about The United States, but lack even the most rudimental knowledge of what the United States is all about. The concepts and principles Americans hold dear are essential to understanding the United States.
  
  In America, the Republican Party believes in keeping the American Revolution going - liberty and freedom. The Democrat Party believes in scrapping that and trying socialism. That's it in a nutshell, and that's why so many Americans are against socialism.
  
  Lastly, and most importantly, readers need to understand that our Republican Party, the Right, has nothing to do with the European Right Wing. Thus, you can not think about American politics using The European Right as your model for understanding the American Right.
  
  Many readers here do just that, and think of Republicans as NAZI's. Yet as I just told you, Republicans are completely against socialism. (for those of you that don't know, NAZI is short for National Socialism). Calling anti-socialists socialists is just absurd, do you not see?
  
  Understanding these basic concepts about the American political climate is the difference between being begrudgingly knowledgeable or being pleasurably ignorant.
  
  .......................................
  
  Amazing that you can be born and live in a country and culture and yet learn absolutely nothing about it or the outside world apart from how to construct pompous waffle.
  
  During the past 100 years both Republicans and Democrats have redistributed wealth through taxation to various degrees. In economic terms there has been very little difference in their policies. The Democrats are certainly not socialist.
  
  The main difference at the moment is that the Republican party has lost its soul. It is no longer the party of (Teddy) Roosevelt and Lincoln, it is now a minority party of religious fundamentalists, racists and people fighting the cold war 20 years after it finished. Those members of the party who still believe in liberal (in the true sense of the word) economics and social values need to oust the irrational populists and rebuild the party.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 51. At 11:34pm on 24 Oct 2008, dylanologist wrote:

  I think American's have been brain-washed for so long about the 'American Dream' being about climbing to the top over the dead bodies of their workmates and neighbours, that to question it now would be like lifelong communists watching the Soviet Union crumble.
  It really is a huge con that has kept the rich and powerful laughing their heads off at the expense of the average worker who keeps chasing the dangling carrot.

  Complain about this comment

• 52. At 6:28pm on 25 Oct 2008, StephenDerry wrote:

  45 Larry
  
  How does socialism not carry equality of opportunity? What opportunity do people born in poor black neighbourhoods, or hick white neighbourhoods in capitalist America have, the ones who have to constantly fight the ravages of poverty and crime without the benefits of education, nutrition or basic healthcare?
  
  How can anyone say they have the same opportunity as the white kids from the suburbs guaranteed a college place because their parents have wealth?
  
  Extreme socialism (which no-one is proposing) would mean absolute equality for everyone, equality of wealth, equality of opportunity, equality of responsibility. Everyone succeeds together or falls together. Those who don't pull their weight have no excuses, those who work extra hard don't see any personal benefits, except insofar as the state benefits as a whole. It may mean no opportunity for anyone, but that is still an equality that capitalism can never achieve.
  
  Socialism and capitalism both have practical applications, in small doses, but neither is a panacea. Politicians should concentrate on what works and try to eliminate poverty before thinking about how to structure a perfect society.

  Complain about this comment

• 53. At 10:25am on 26 Oct 2008, american_garry wrote:

  Dear Sir;
  
  Most americans have experienced socialism in one form or another; whether it is in schools or unemployment or disaster relief. It isn't that we don't believe in it, it is that we are weary of government going anywhere that it isn't absolutely necessary. The long arm of government has a history of starting well intentioned and then turning into an out of control beaurocratic nightmare. Examples of this can be seen in the Social Security system. When social security was started it was intended to be a short term fix to a generation of post depression workers that had nothing saved for retirement; 60+ years later we are still trying to replace it. Every year it comes closer to failure, it has become so big and people so dependent on it that many cannot imagine life with out it.
  
  We are in general, educated enough to handle most of our own problems and prefer to save government for those moments when we have no other choice.
  
  Redistribution of wealth is something we choose to do voluntarily rather than having a government do it for us. I am very proud of the fact that as Americans we are the most generous civiization in history; per capita we have given more to help both each other and other countries through foreign aid than any one else. I can feel good about that, I can't feel good about the government taking money from me that I worked all my life to get and telling me where it is going.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 54. At 2:24pm on 27 Oct 2008, mpnunan wrote:

  Matthew Price is exactly right.
  
  No one is thinking in terms of what may or may not be be a valid political philosophy.
  
  The feel behind the word "socialism" in the US, in general, is like watering-down vibrancy, watering-down potential, and bringing the very best, most talented individuals down to the level of the masses.
  
  It feels like institutionalizing mediocrity. And that it runs entirely counter to the US creation myth.
  
  Socialism, as this definition goes, doesn't allow for heroism on an individual or national level, ie, socialists don't win WWII, they don't win the Space Race (totalitarians might, but not socialists;) socialists don't invent Google.
  
  And this is coming from someone who voted for the US Socialist Party twice!!!

  Complain about this comment

• 55. At 10:26pm on 27 Oct 2008, Bloofs wrote:

  "And this is coming from someone who voted for the US Socialist Party twice!!!"
  
  -There's a US Socialist Party??? Who's their presidential candidate this year?

  Complain about this comment

• 56. At 03:27am on 28 Oct 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  Dear Mattew,
  I already give you this today in Dayton,Ohio and thanks for posting the video.
  Now I am posting my letter send to BBC , as well as the local newspaper!!!!!!!!!!!!
  ThuDifference is something we live with, not fight with” –is my and my family mission in life. This has been my driving force to immigrate to America right after completing medical school in my native country Macedonia. Ever since this Land of Opportunity- where we can be whoever we want to be regardless of our color, race, religion or educational background-has never let me down.
  
  
  
  Growing up in the turbulent times of Communism has had a profound impact on the way I perceive the world today. Early on in life I learnt the importance of human right, dignity and the worth of every single individual in the sustenance of a nation .Even though we were fortunate to have a more liberal regime than our compatriots in the erstwhile Soviet Union and elsewhere we had our own share of missed opportunities; and none greater than not being able to integrate ourselves with the rest of the world.
  
  
  
  I still vividly remember the days when I needed to pack a kilogram of sugar and spices from Macedonia to deliver them in person to my fellow relatives in Bulgaria during the end of the Todor Zivkov regime. From waking early in the morning for a liter of milk to waiting hours for a pound of meat it has been a journey of rich experiences. It taught me the value of self-constraint and discipline which to this day has remained with me as a faithful companion. But the most important thing we got from that past era apart from a solid education, were a sense of belonging amidst the diversity and volatility of the Balkans. So now when I see the same people up in arms in Bosnia I ask myself what could possibly be the reason for such hostility and conflict. How can conflicts like these be the solution to peace!
  
  
  
  I often ask myself why nations go to war. Is it due to our relationship with people of different belief and cultures or, is it due the changing dynamics of the modern multilateral world? I believe it has more to do with the inherent resentment of people towards change itself that plays a major role to instigate a conflict. We know that any change generates stress – transition from old to new create the spark which if not properly channeled always has the potential to defeat the very purpose of the change. While traveling through my own personal and professional journeys, in between working for a living and navigating the labyrinths of a new culture and country, I eventually realized the significance of negotiation and mediation. Going back to work in the Balkans after a decade of American naturalization made me realize that change is situational and start with a new beginning. Transitions on the other hand are psychological and start with the ending. Transitions mean letting go of our old attitudes, behavior, or way of doing things. And the more I tried resisting this change the more I engaged myself in negative assumptions about others bc the heterogeneity of people, ideas and issues encouraged differences and lead to conflicts.
  
  
  
  .
  
  So why I am writing this?
  
  Because it is time for America to WAKE UP and to think not only about the present, but also of the future. Instead of thinking what America can do for us, why don't we think what we can do for America !
  
  My fellow Citizens, my fellow Americans why don’t you ask yourselves why everyone from Europe, India, Africa & elsewhere wants to immigrate to America leaving their motherland and families behind? Because this is the only country where we can be and become whoever we want to become-from doctors to janitors everyone is equal here in this land of opportunity. This is the only place where no one can’t just sexually harass women and get away with it. This is the only place where the laws are same for everyone. This is the place where stability, security and safety for its people matters more than anything else!
  
  
  
  Please ask yourselves how we are going to grow economically when your security is jeopardized, when your safety is in danger, when you are afraid that your country is constantly under the Orange Code –Terrorist Watch! Reflect on the time(s) when we the people from Ohio and Texas didn’t have electricity for 7 days creating such a panic that people thought its the end of the world and yet we learnt to appreciate every single cube of ice and candle that was hiding somewhere in the kitchen cabinets. Well, coming from eastern Europe this was nothing new to me; my daughter Michelle Nadalina even got the firewood rolling in the backyard making spaghetti and Macedonian salsa (Ajvar ) right there in nature ,under the moon, washing dishes with hands, walking to the store and frankly, we were quit happy! But are you going to be happy if you had to go back to the socialistic –Communistic era that I grew up where ratio of positive work culture opportunities was like 1:10, meaning that even though only one is working with the mouth shut, feeding 10 people, but at the same time constantly barking so to say.
  
  
  
  My fellow immigrants, I believe that you came here for the same reason that I did, to progress and move forward, not backwards isn’t? My fellow immigrants I believe that you didn’t come here to teach your children to not work for a leaving and depend on 'contacts' and references and your social status; I believe that you didn’t come here to borrow the money form the government to become couch potatoes, but to rather work hard and be compensated and rewarded based on your education and the efforts you put into your work isn’t ? Otherwise you could have stayed back in your homes, with your own people. My fellow people from India, you probably know best what Terror is since you suffered more than any other. You witnessed the horror and bombs on the streets and temple and you understand and know the importance of safety. That is probably one of the reasons you immigrated to this country, so you can provide safety for your family! My Fellow naturalized American -Yugoslavians (Bosnians ,Serbians ,Croatians, Macedonians) you experienced war on your shoulder and you lived all happily together as Christians, Catholics and Muslims for almost 50 years until "Jihad" & Islamic fundamentalism invaded the country with a motto “Divide and rule". You experienced terror, rape and humiliation and you pledged to protect this country as your own because you know how precious the Freedom is because you already fought for it!
  
  My fellow Americans (born here) I hope you learnt the lesson from 9/11 and I hope you can do whatever it takes to protect your country from such evil - the biggest threat of human kind -Terrorism!
  
  I hope all of us can be more aware for our surrounding and more vigilant and “simple know how" and protect this beautiful country of ours – United States of America.
  
  
  
  Being a first generation immigrant and naturalized American by choice, being an Indian by marriage makes me a citizen of the world who want a terror- free environment and Spirituality as a form of Education. And that is why my fellow Citizens I urge you to re-examine your thoughts and think what is yours and your children's priority in Life?
  
  
  
  Is it how big of croissants you are going to eat for breakfast or what designer dress or make- up you are going to wear today or how big of a house you are going to live tomorrow or you are going to focus how to make this America a better place for all of us by learning to protect the most basic human right –terror freedom.
  
  
  
  In my case I decide to fight for the Freedom at all cost, without any compromise and vote for the party that promote so –John McCain/Palin 2008!
  THUMBS UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Complain about this comment

• 57. At 03:29am on 28 Oct 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  I want you to post my letter about what socialism means !!
  Thank you

  Complain about this comment

• 58. At 8:21pm on 28 Oct 2008, Tlingit wrote:

  Think of us as being the world's teenagers. We think we know everything, we don't listen well, and we're just learning how to make best use of our new, stronger physique. Wisdom and forethought are not priorities. We're reactionary. We are for the most part, naive.
  
  Chin up, though, we're not all like this. Urban America isn't cowering at words like socialism or even communism. There are many whom understand the ideology and the history of these political philosophies and are not compelled to exclaim "the sky is falling" at hearing the utterance.
  
  Much of America lives in what we call "the bubble." This is common parlance for the people who live in cut-and-paste neighborhoods -- same houses, same churches, Wal-mart, Home Depot, Safeway, Starbucks, and any other strip mall establishments. These people get caught up in well-landscaped lawns and beige houses, they strive for their children to have everything they didn't, they put pressure on each other to go to the best private schools and wear the latest trendy things and drive the nicest or biggest cars. They are all affiliated with some local church and go to the local high school football games. They confuse "need" with "want." They need a house with five bedrooms just in case they have a guest. They need a large vehicle to carry their kids a block to school in. They are good people, but they are like terrarium plants... they are dependent on the outside world, but they don't know it.
  
  I would contend that in more urban areas, we're forced to witness and be a part of a harsher reality outside the confines of bubbles and cloches. We see gangs and homeless people daily. We pay much higher prices for gas. Our hospitals are impacted and our police are overworked. People use emergency rooms as their only source of medical and illegal immigrant workers stand in the hundreds along the main thoroughfares at the crack of sparrow in hopes of finding any work on any given day.
  
  I know and many people know that social programs will create a positive impact on individuals in America whether they live in or outside of the bubble. I just spoke with a friend whom has always been a well-cloistered, christian gal. She was telling me about how her family has been paying $900 a month for health insurance, but that they haven't been able to use it because their deductible (the amount you have to pay up to before one's insurance will pay one's medical expenses) is $3000. The only reason they are paying is in the case they have an emergency. In this conversation, I explained the NHS to her, and you'll be shocked to hear that she had no idea that other nations offered medical care that you did not need to buy insurance to receive. I was shocked at her global ignorance.
  
  I digress, but I hope my point came across. We're not all young and silly and we don't all cower at the thought of national social programs.

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS