Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: "Everyone now is more or less a Socialist" [View all]Babel_17
(5,400 posts)47. "The point here is not to defend socialism"
http://www.thenation.com/article/how-socialists-built-america/
... Borrowing ideas and approaches from socialists would not make Obama any more of a socialist than Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower. All these presidential predecessors sampled ideas from Marxist tracts or borrowed from Socialist Party platforms so frequently that the New York Times noted in a 1954 profile the faith of an aging Norman Thomas that he had made a great contribution in pioneering ideas that have now won the support of both major partiesideas like Social Security, public housing, public power developments, legal protection for collective bargaining and other attributes of the welfare state. The fact is that many of the men who occupied the Oval Office before Obama knew that implementation of sound socialist or social democratic ideas did not put them at odds with the American experiment or the Constitution.
The point here is not to defend socialism. What we should be defending is historyAmerican history, with its rich and vibrant hues, some of them red. The past should be consulted not merely for anecdotes or factoids but for perspective on the present. Such a perspective empowers Americans who seek a robust debate, one that samples from a broad ideological spectruman appropriate endeavor in a country where Tom Paine imagined citizens who, by casting their eye over a large field, take in likewise a large intellectual circuit, and thus approaching nearer to an acquaintance with the universe, their atmosphere of thought is extended, and their liberality fills a wider space.
America has always suffered fools who would have us dwindle the debate down to a range of opinions narrow enough to contain the edicts of a potentate, a priest or a plantation boss. But the real history of America tells us that the unique thing about our present situation is that we have suffered the fools so thoroughly that a good many Americansnot just Tea Partisans or Limbaugh Dittoheads but citizens of the great middleactually take Sarah Palin seriously when she rants that socialism, in the form of building codes, is antithetical to Americanism.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
86 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
As a Sanders Supporter, I agree. Socialist Democrats would be more acceptable. I think it
libdem4life
Dec 2015
#3
Linguistics is culture...a noun is different than an adjective used to delineate a noun. We start
libdem4life
Dec 2015
#7
Who cares about Norway or Sweden. They don't get a vote here. I'm ignoring your
libdem4life
Dec 2015
#68
What is fascinating, if you'll look back, I agreed with you. From there on it was parsing
libdem4life
Dec 2015
#78
There are more tendencies within socialist philosophies than just Marxism.
Fantastic Anarchist
Dec 2015
#30
You are fighting a losing battle here, Babel. DU'ers who support HRC have nothing to add to the
mother earth
Dec 2015
#80