Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
Yesterday at the Washington Examiner, Michael Barone filed, The knowledgeable public, wherein he provides some possible background to the Rasmussen data:
So I was heartened to see a poll, conducted March 26-29, by Pew Research, which showed that most of the American public knows knows more about the economic crisis than one might have thought. Large majorities know that TARP money is intended to get banks to lend more and that China holds more U.S. government debt than any other country. People are evidently paying attention, and to a greater extent I think than they usually do. Pew asked several quiz questions, and in the past I’ve thought that these tend to underestimate the degree of people’s knowledge.
Mr. Barone goes on to detail:
So what do our surprisingly knowledgeable fellow citizens think the government should be doing about our economic problems. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that 52% of Americans now worry that the government will do too much to fix the economy. That’s up (insignificantly) from 50% in March and (significantly) from 43% in mid-February. Only 31% fear the government will do too little, down from 40% in March and 43% in February. To put it another way, Americans in April worry that the government will do too much rather than too little by a 52%-31% margin, while Americans in February were split 43%-43% on whether the government was doing too much or too little. That’s a significant shift of opinion over a short period of time.
Also yesterday (at NRO, h/t Drudge) Mitt Romney filed, A Timid Advocate of Freedom, with his opinion of the importance of appearances and language used by our government:
The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.
In Mr. Obama's first 100 days there have been quite a number of faux pas and other political gaffes, including low-rent and thoughtless gifts to other world leaders and dignitaries. Shaking the hand of the Venezuelan dictator was the last in the series, demonstrating for anyone who is paying attention that our President is not capable of hitting the bricks running, as we were promised and persuaded during the election cycle, at least in terms of behavior.
For those uneducated or undisciplined in the realm of diplomacy, these may seem like minor foibles of a simple(ton) man, peter principled into the Office of President; however, the President is supposed to have a staff of people who prevent him from making a fool of himself, and by extension, a fool of all of us. The explanations for these gaffes fall into three categories:
- He has no diplomacy advisers
- His diplomacy advisers are dunces
- He doesn't listen to anyone
None of the explanations bode well.
Diplomacy, especially at the nation-state level, is the dance of politics. Wars begin and are prevented at these dance parties, with our allies and enemies sizing up the competition by how well they perform on the dance floor.
It is possible that those who craved a materialistically egalitarian society, and voted for Mr. Obama as the means to those ends, see his gaffes as charming or common. They may also see them as unimportant, and dismiss their significance as old-fashioned. Mr. Romney's article points out just how significant and important the world's dance floor can be when it comes to achieving our goals, protecting our interests, and preventing global war.
In discussions with the late Mr. Nikita Khrushchev he was asked why he attempted to install missile silos in Cuba. In response, he said that he believed that John F. Kennedy was weak:
Kennedy went there shortly after his spectacular blunders at the Bay of Pigs, and was savaged by Khrushchev.... I had an hour alone with President Kennedy immediately after his last meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna at that time...Khrushchev had assumed, Kennedy said, that any American President who invaded Cuba without adequate preparation was inexperienced, and any president who then didn't use force to see the invasion through was weak. Kennedy admitted Khrushchev's logic on both points.
The recent events with Iran's blustering about having the ability to enrich uranium and North Korea's missile testing are both examples of the world test Mr. Biden spoke about:
Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.
By any reasonable measure, Mr. Obama has failed the Kennedy weakness test, miserably.
Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with saying, "Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence." However, there comes a point when Occam's Razor rears its ugly edge and it becomes more important to attribute these series of gaffes to one of malice and intention, rather than simple stupidity. Either Mr. Obama is stupid, weak, and incompetent, or he is smart, and knows exactly what he is doing.
During the campaign, when asked by Joe, The Plumber about Mr. Obama's economic proclivities, Mr. Obama responded by saying, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
Despite that bold admission, during arguments of Obama's fitness for office, against charges of Obama as a socialist, there were loud cries of "NO, HE IS NOT!" They were deafening. Now we are told that socialism isn't so bad, maybe not in word, but in deed, so there's nothing for us to be upset about.
The TARP rescued banks have been told that they might not be able to payback their loaned money. Instead, the ex post facto strings attached to the money will continue unabated while the government considers if it will trade their loans for stock (ownership). In non-Orwellian double-speak, government ownership is called, nationalization, and that defines what socialism is:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by economic equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation.
Add a little incompetence to the mix, special favors for those who are more equal than others, and you have a totalitarian state.
I doubt that those who were polled by Rasmussen would have responded as favorably with the idea of a totalitarian state, but that is exactly what socialism is, with better marketing through research. If queried about their happiness with fascism, Americans might also have responded differently, but it is important to realize that there are only minor differences between socialism and fascism:
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
What communism, socialism, and fascism have in common is that they are all totalitarian. It matters not a bit if the boots stomping on the faces of the people are made by Patagonia, Timberland, or Frye. They all leave a nasty mark. Capitalism can be brutal, but it is better than the other options.
It would be correct, in hindsight, to have referred to Mr. Obama as a fascist, not a socialist. I doubt, however, if the defenses would have been any less shrill, or any more inaccurate.
We should revise Rasmussen's questions and see what the results would be:
- Do you favor fascism or free markets?
- Do you favor capitalism or totalitarianism?
- Do you think the government should control all aspects of private business or should business owners be left alone?
I think that Mr. Barone may be on to something: The American people may be smarter than our government thinks they are.
Posts
