Posted By: Steve
Watching FOXNews, I can’t help but feel that the country is moving towards a second era of McCarthyism. In the 1950s, ‘Communism’, and ‘Socialism’ were evil concepts that alleged allegiance to could spell doom for careers and lives. Now, the United States was indeed in a war of ideology with the Soviet Union at the time, but I don’t think that anybody denies that the McCarthy era “witch hunts” went too far.
The Rush Limbaughs, the Glenn Becks, the Sean Hannitys, since President Obama was inaugurated, have entered into “attack mode” against him, citing his social/economic policies as “progressive” and leading to Communism and/or Socialism. While, certainly, I disagree with many of the president’s fiscal policies, how does speaking out against, say, the very Constitutionally flimsy concept of the National Day of Prayer equate with a Maoist cultural revolution, as Glenn Beck once (as I understood it) try to equate?
Maybe it is because I grew up after the Cold War ended (I was five in 1991), but why are communism or socialism concepts that are automatically bad, and as such, should be demonized? Now, that is not to say that I agree with some or all of the tenets of these philosophies, but why are they automatically bad? In effect, yes, history has shown us that these philosophies that stress the ultimate freedom for all invariably become more or less fascist, joint-dictatorships where a small elite rule (such as the People’s Republic of China, with the Chinese Communist Party, or Cuba, with the Cuban Communist Party), because they do not seemingly take into account human greed and lust for power. But, ideologically- since that is the only medium that most policy debates ever see- why are communism and socialism automatically bad, and as such, those who hold such views should be demonized?
The socialist charge that capitalism causes power and wealth to become concentrated within a small segment of total society (the bourgeoisie), and as such, the bourgeoisie is at a disadvantage, when it comes to social and economic matters, is certainly true. The government- meant to represent the general populace- is constantly swayed by large lobby groups that represent their own specific interests (regardless of whatever those issues actually are), that sway congressmen and senators and “buy” votes, that, in turn, serve to further empower and entitle the bourgeoisie. Look no further than, say, the recent Health Care legislation, which will make it mandatory for everybody to buy health insurance policies. I, myself, a young, healthy male without prior medical problems, will be forced under penalty of fine, to purchase health insurance that will, for the most part, be unused, as I do not get sick often, and do not visit doctors, specialists, pharmacies, and so on when I go get sick. I am being forced to pay insurance companies- multimillion-dollar corporations- money for nothing, basically.
The crux of the matter, I think, is that shutting out reformist socialism serves no purpose. The majority of “hard working”, low and middle class Americans who listen to the Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and so on, would benefit from socialistic policies being implemented in the United States in some way. In fact, most already do, with unemployment insurance, and Medicaid, and so on. The way “progressive”, “socialist”, “communist”, and related terms are increasingly being used by the general public, however, you’d think that the terms are associated with absolute, objectively evil concepts, of which no good can ever stem from.
More problematic, though, is the fact that such terms are being used as a way to create ill will against certain individuals, that the terms are being used to vilify people. Reading message boards on various locales of the internet, people accuse others of being “communists”, “socialists”, “liberals”, “progressives”, and whatever else, as if labeling someone as such makes them automatically win whatever the argument is, whatever the discussion is, whatever the debate is. Being a communist, or having communistic beliefs equates with being incorrect, having no good points to make, and being something that is bad. Being a socialist, or having socialistic beliefs equates with being incorrect, having no good points to make, and being something that is bad. Being a liberal, or having liberal beliefs equates with being incorrect, having no good points to make, and being something that is bad. Being progressive, or having progressive beliefs equates with being incorrect, having no good points to make, and being something that is bad. This is where the problem lies. As I touched on earlier, while governments and economies that supported some of the above tenets have not necessarily lived up to the theoretical good that those policies, on paper, are supposed to, it’s not as if our own system is exactly “looking out for the little guy”.
Ironically, in the news today, Glenn Beck accused NY Congressman Anthony Weiner of using strong handed, McCarthyist tactics, in regards to Weiner’s inquiry into Goldline International, a company that buys gold coins, jewelry, watches, and so on, that Beck and a handful of other television/radio personalities have offered testimonials for. According to Beck, Congressman Weiner is “trying on the shoes of McCarthy”, and that we, the United States, “are in full-fledged McCarthy Land now”. Asides for not actually addressing the criticisms that Congressman Weiner brought up regarding Goldline- which are fairly accurate, given what I already know of the company, and similar cash-for-gold operations- methinks that Mr. Beck should look in a mirror, lest he become exactly what he is decrying.
[...] are a little annoying, because such claims are not particularly true. Even more annoying for me, as I’ve written about in the past, is because ‘socialist’ is used as a condemnation, with negative connotations. [...]