Socialist is someone who believes the government should do all things and own all things. That is what Obama believes. That is what someone who thinks the government should fund health care believes. So he is a socialist. It's not really that dirty, at least he's not a communist.
If you wish to argue that everyone is entitled to their own definitions, then you are okay on this point. But then most of us try to communicate by, at least, agreeing that we are not entitled to them. And if you are in that camp, the latter camp, then one place to look for a definition is wikipedia.
Here's their definition. The key terms in that definition is "control". I see the key as control of the economic system. Obama isn't even close to that. Nor is universal, single payer health insurance.
Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.
en.wikipedia.org
But, if after all this, the point of using the term "socialist" is not analytical but political blaming, then you have become your own refutation.
To my knowledge there is only one reasonably serious socialist in American politics--Bernie Sanders, the US Senator from Vermont. No other name, at least at that level, leaps to mind. |
