Political Comment

One of the common labels employed by critics attacking of President Obama's stimulus bill is "socialist." I know that's a fright-laden term since it evokes images of Josef Stalin and the KGB, but the history of socialism is much broader and often more benign than such a connection implies, especially in this country. For one thing, socialistic ideas are not incompatible with democracy; and though it's a less obvious fit, at least theoretically, it's not really all that incompatible with capitalism either (understanding that such a relationship involves a degree of compromise on both sides-- look at Germany for example). Certainly, programs that have socialistic elements have been successful in the past in this country; this morning, Mark Schone at Salon.com collected a whole slide show of evidence. Part of the genius of Franklin Roosevelt was his ability to set aside labels (and their attached ideologies) to embrace policies that might help, regardless of their theoretical origins or attachment to specific factions (and during the New Deal, that meant fascism as well as socialism). His goal, and ultimately his success, was in crafting a set of programs that collectively worked to preserve the fundamental democratic/capitalistic nature of our system, by demonstrating its inherent flexibility in occasionally embracing seemingly radical ideas. It would be nice if the current critics could be so open-minded, and confident that our system is ultimately strong enough to endure such pragmatic compromise, especially in a time of emergency. Stephen Pearlstine's article in this morning's Washington Post addresses this same issue.