Saturday, October 25, 2008

TERRORISM, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, and FASCISM

The McPalin Campain, sensing imminent defeat at the hands of the Obama forces, has resorted to the most vile name calling and subliminal hate mongering that we've seen since, well, since the same people ran the G.W. Bush campaigns. These labels are pronounced from the podia by McPalin surrogates and by the candidates themselves. The messages: Obama is a terrorist (and a Muslim one, at that); Obama is a socialist; Obama is a communist. Media journalists interview McPalin supporters at campaign rallies and air statements such as "he's an Arab," "he's a socialist," "he's a communist," etc.

What's really going on here?

Terrorism
is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

William Ayers was a terrorist, based on the above definition, no question. But what about abortion clinic bombers, violent protesters, and others who do similar things? According to Governor Palin - well, watch the interview yourself. And let's not forget the U.S. invasion of Iraq - "Shock and Awe" - in which the U.S. government invaded a sovereign nation without provocation and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, including civilians. Terrorism?

Socialism is defined as any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

So let's get this straight - Barack Obama is a socialist because he advocates increasing income taxes for wealthy folks, thereby advocating collective or government ownership of the means of production? Huh? Um, don't look now, but the U.S. government has just taken over - as majority shareholders - some of the largest insurance companies and financial institutions in this country. Both McCain and Obama voted for these takeovers (disguised as bailouts): they're both socialists, I guess.

Communism is defined as
a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

See above re: socialism. And this is what the Bush administration has been all about, except that the definition has to be tinkered with a bit to read: "...all goods are equally shared by the (rich) people." Where is McPalin on this one? Lock step with the Bushfolk.

Here's another term of interest in this discussion: fascism.

Fascism is defined as a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Are we there yet? A close look at the past eight years under Cheney-Bush, using the above definition, leads one dangerously close to concluding that we've been on the road to fascism. One need only listen to the speeches of Lord Darth Cheney, look at the domestic spying authorized by Bush, the use of kidnappings and secret prisons, the suspension of habeus corpus, the labeling of anyone who does not meet the administration's definition of "patriotism" as a traitor, to get chills of a bleak future for America. And now we have McCain and Palin stirring up fears of race, Arabs, Muslims, socialists and commies....

A McPalin administration is a chilling prospect for America, a prospect founded on fear and suspicion. An Obama administration offers a prospect of hope for changing the direction of this country towards the ideal that we all believe in. Which do you choose?

I choose the Obama path, and if this makes me a terrorist, socialist, communist - well, so be it.

2 comments:

Pete said...

Of course I agree with you Paul. This campaign has been very charged, on both sides, but throughout its entirety, and maybe this is just my bias, I feel that the McCain team has consistently been on the offensive, in both mudslinging and within the various debates. During the final debate, and I only saw the last half unfortunately, the content that stands out in my memory the most is that of McCain accusing Obama of various "wrongdoings" during his political career, and Obama, successfully I feel, defending himself against unsubstantiated claims. It was like watching a bratty child with a very small arsenal of valid arguments (McCain) debate with a composed adult (Obama)doing his best to engage in meaningful discussion with this "child." What disgusts me the most is how hypocritical many of McCain/Palin's claims actually are. They might as well just define their campaign platform as "deception." I truly hope, not only for the sake of our country, but for the sake of the rest of the world, which already has a bad taste in its mouth after the last eight years, Obama doesn't just win, but dominates this election. Anyone who has the ability to vote and doesn't take advantage of it, well, they might be just as stupid of a person as Palin.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Pete. It truly amazes me that so many people actually agree with the McCain campaign and get into this anti-elitist, etc. fervor. Are we really the united states of America, or have we become more than one united country? A look at the election maps on any of the news sites shows a country dived down the middle, with the west coast, northeast coast, and the northern middle being of a like mind, and the "heartland" being of another. Can we as a nation survive this disunity? Can Obama bring people together? Time will tell.

Twitter