American Socialism?

Given that this is the night before election day and the unpopularity of some of my posts on this topic, I think this will be my last political post. So bare with me! ;-)

There have been a lot of exclamation of "socialism" during this election year toward the democratic candidate and I will have to be honest that I am having a hard time swallowing that pill. Now, admittedly, I am an independent voter who will be supporting Barack Obama for this year, but I gotta say that the proposals that are being put forth are far from the typical "socialist" or "communist" visions that these name tags inspire. Below are the positions I have heard most often referenced as "socialism" and would like to put forth a bit of discussion and history to each:

• Redistribution of Wealth
• Universal healthcare
• Publicly Funded Education
  

The Redistribution of Wealth

This topic seems to be the biggest hitter for the call of "Socialist", but I think it is a bit of a stretch. Redistribution of wealth has been a part of the American economy since 1861 with the passage of the 1861 tax act that created a progressive tax system for the US. While one can debate the merits of such a system, it was not stemmed from socialist inputs. The ideology behind such a system has been traced back to Adam Smith, the father of modern free market economics. The tax policies proposed by this year's democratic candidate proposes no changes to the framework of our tax systems, but rather the percentages of taxation for different income levels, something that both political parties have done since the systems inception. In addition, the tax rate increases he proposes are nowhere near historical levels and are similar to those in the early 80's with Ronald Reagan. Even at current levels of taxation, the top 1% of the income bracket still pay significantly less due to low capital gains taxes (vs. payroll taxes), loopholes, and tax shelters. Just ask Warren Buffet.

When you look at our country from an income disparity perspective, we are one of the highest disparities when compared to other democratic industrialized nations, much closer to China than to any Western European countries. When looking at a history of our income disparity, the gap between rich and poor has widened since WWII, while similar countries have either remained the same or fallen, again, except for China.

And one last thing, I often see the phrase "why are you punishing people who work hard by raising their taxes?" I must remind those folks that the folks who are near the bottom of the income scale also work hard. Those that make over $250,000 are not the only ones. My wife is a good example of those who work hard and make little. She was a preschool teacher and later a preschool director and sadly could barely make ends meet, not to mention have any money available for "luxuries" like health insurance. Now throw a child and the cost of childcare in the mix that many single mothers need to endure and then ask me if they work hard enough..

Universal Healthcare

If the institution of a universal healthcare system means that the country is immersed in socialism, than the democratic countries are most certainly outnumbered by Socialist regimes. The US is the only wealthy industrialized nation in the world without a universal healthcare system. Virtually all of Europe, the largest countries in South America, and a number of countries in Africa and Asia have all deployed different flavors of such a system. I can certainly see benefits in debating the merits of implementing universal healthcare, but calling those that support it as "socialists" in the Karl Marx-sense is certainly off-base. I think the challenge with universal healthcare is around the economics and operational aspects of it rather than the need for it. I think that the one thing we can all agree on is that our current system is certainly broken and we have some of the most expensive and inefficient healthcare in the world.

I think an important concept that is often overlooked in Obama's plan is that the universal healthcare system is to be universally available to all, not universally mandated. Citizens will have the right to choose between plans and those who are happy with their current healthcare system are welcome to keep their plan. This is more similar to how our current mail system works (USPS vs. Fed Ex, etc.) rather than the traditional socialist's view of solely government run establishments.

Publicly Funded Education

The main difference between the two candidates here are really around the use of school vouchers that I have already discussed in previous posts, so I won't repeat here. I hardly think that government funded education would be classified as "socialism" since we have had this model since the colonial times and public funding of school was supported by our founding fathers.

The support for the expansion of the charter school programs is clearly not a socialist idea either. It opens up schools to be managed by non-government agencies and does allow some level of choice and competition between schools without allowing schools do cream scrimming of students through scrupulous acceptance practices.

In regards to funds being funnelled to make higher education more affordable, that is something that just makes sense to me. Having a well-educated populous is one of the cornerstones that made us a world leader and we should continue to invest money into making education accessible to all. Just ask Thomas Jefferson. There is no benefit in keeping those who have the desire and capability but cannot afford school out of school. In addition, the amount of debt that one obtains going to higher education has a significant impact in the career selection, and this I speak from experience. Being head of a household that still has over $30,000 of college debt, I can assure you that a career in teaching or in the science field was the farthest from my mind when I left college. My biggest question was, what job can I get that will pay enough to afford the loan repayments? I don't think this is a decision on whether this is a socialist idea or not. It is a decision we should all support for the general benefit of this country.

Religious Tolerance

When I contemplate why I am a Christian, I can only come up with two reasons:

1. It was the religion in which I was raised and,
2. I haven't found a reason to change.

I mean, the story appeals to me, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, charity and good will, but it isn't like I shopped around for a religion to find the perfect one. Religion to me isn't something you can really analyze and weigh the pros and cons of each like you do when buying a car or deciding when to start a family. Christianity feels right enough for me, at least right enough not to feel the need to "shop around" for anything else. After all, religion is really just the development of a personal relationship with God and living through his teachings. I believe in the teachings of Christianity and the message I get on Sundays.

When I step back and look at the 1000 different flavors of religion, I tend to find a number of commonalities between them. The commonalities aren't in numbers or names of Gods, the stories in their doctrines, or their ceremonies and dogma, but rather they reside in the beliefs of the fundamental rights and liberties of man. In Christian terms, these rights translate to those that abide by the virtues of "Love thy neighbor", "Do unto others as you would see them done unto you", and essentially the 10 commandments. In secular terms, don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, don't commit adultery, and so on. Perhaps I am being too much of an optimist, but I feel that every human has a sense of accepted morality and what is commonly good of society. The presence of these fundamental rights throughout disparate religions provides evidence that man is generally good and encourages the promotion of these beliefs throughout society. At the bottom of this post, I have provided an example of these commonalities with the pervasiveness of the Golden Rule.

It is this commonality in religion that gives me a great deal of acceptance of other religions. If religion is what solidifies these fundamental virtues, and thus protect my own freedom, liberties, and virtues, I whole heartedly support it. In the end, it is our Maker(s) who is/are the judge, jury, and executioner and it isn't my place to be his (or her?) surrogate. If I die and see Buddha at the pearly gates, all I can say is "Hey, I didn't believe in you on Earth, but at least I was a good person to others, right?" That is about the best that anyone can do. It is because of this, I don't really feel that there is a "right" or "wrong" religion. At the end of the day, no one will know for sure until they are at the end of their rope.

Unfortunately, many folks are pushed away because of the "institution" of religion. Not because of the fundamental rights or the foundation of religion, but rather because of those who, I feel, lose the meaning of religion. Those who judge. Those who push their beliefs rather than teach their beliefs. Those that promote prejudice, intolerance, stereotypes, and outright bigotry. Those that rob others from their freedom, their lives or their spirituality through violence, abuse, or intimidation. This is truly a shame. I feel that these individuals have lost sight of the purpose of a belief system and the doctrine from which their belief system is based.

---

The Golden Rule in Different Belief Systems.

• Bahá’í: “Choose…for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself.” (Bahá’u’lláh)
  
• Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” (Udana-Varga 5, 18) “Consider others as yourself.” (Dhammapada 10.1)
  
• Christianity: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)
  
• Confucianism: “Is there one maxim that ought to be acted upon throughout one’s whole life? Surely it is the maxim of lovingkindness: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” (Analects 15, 23)
  
• Greek Philosophy: “Treat your friends as you would want them to treat you.” (Aristotle, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, 5:21; Bohn Library translation, 188) “Do not do to others what you would not wish to suffer yourself.” (Isocrates, Isocrates Cyprian Orations, 149)
  
• Hinduism: “Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.” (Mahabharata 13.115.22)
  
• Islam: “Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” (Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 13)
  
• Jainism: “A man should treat all creatures in the world as he himself would like to be treated.” (Sutra-keit-anga)
  
• Judaism: “Don’t take vengeance on or bear a grudge against any of your people; rather, love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” (Leviticus 19:18) “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.” (Babylonian Talmud, Sabbath 31a)
  
• Sikhism: “As thou deemest thyself, so deem others. Then shalt thou become a partner in heaven.” (Kabir’s Hymns, Asa 17)


• Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” (T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien)
  
• Zoroastrianism: “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.” (Dadistan-i-dinik 94, 5)
  
  

1 Peter Smith, “Golden Rule,” A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá’í Faith (Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications, 2000) p. 165.