When John Blake, from CNN, asked Billy Wharton (the co-chair of the Socialist Party USA) if Obama was a socialist, he replied saying that “Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal” (Blake). In this article, Billy says that’s Obama is trying to protect the richest five percent of America. To Wharton, socialism means that “to the workers and consumers affected by economic institutions should own or control them” (Blake). Blake also says that, according to Van Gosse, America already has socialistic institutions such as: Pell Grants, public education, unemployment benefits, and social security. Conrad Quagliaroli has an argument for all of this. His argument is that Obama made a promise to “spread the wealth” and his associations with radicals make him a socialist.
I agree with Quagliaroli when he says that socialism breeds mediocrity and capitalism breeds excellence. This is one of socialism main fault. To have representatives of socialist parties deny some one of being socialist is a big deal. They carry a very strong argument, saying that most of what Obama is being blamed for came from before him and that he is, in actuality, trying to protect the wealthy five percent. They (the socialist in the article) say that socialist want to instill democratic features to reduce inequality. To me, the fact that he has passed a bill ensuring everyone health care seems to be an attempt to diminish inequality. Both sides are hard to argue though.
| Blake, John. "Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?."CNN Politics. CNN, 15 Apr 2010. Web. 13 May 2010. |
No comments:
Post a Comment