Contrary to popular belief, there is a difference between fascism and socialism.
Contrary to popular belief, there is hardly a difference between President Bush and President Obama.
It was (and still is) a popular thing to call President Bush a fascist. People pointed to quite a few things to “prove” that he was fascist:
1. lack of regard for human rights
2. extreme nationalism (some thought he was “too patriotic”)
3. obsession with national security
4. protection of the corporate world
5. using religion in politics
6. fraudulent elections
7. controlled mass media (yes, some thought he controlled the media!)
Now it’s a popular thing to call President Obama a socialist. The arguments you are most likely to hear are:
1. his redistribution of wealth comments
2. that whole “clinging to religion” thing (“Religion is the opiate of the masses.” – Karl Marx)
3. cult of personality
4. desire to nationalize health care
5. cap and trade
6. fraudulent elections
7. controlled mass media
The fact of the matter is, after you take the political party out of the equation, there’s barely a dime’s worth of difference between the presidency of George W. Bush and that of Barack Obama (so far, at least).
So if President Bush was called a fascist and President Obama is called a socialist, how am I coming to this conclusion?
The only thing that George W. Bush had in common with a “real” fascist is that he was on the right. The only thing that Barack H. Obama has in common with a “real” socialist is that he is on the left. If you ask a true socialist if they consider President Obama one of them, they will laugh in your face. But let’s look at a few complaints people had with President Bush:
The national debt was out of control under George W. Bush/Bush spent too much money. True. The federal deficit rose from $5.8 trillion to $10 trillion when he left office, about a $4.2 trillion increase. If trends hold true, the deficit under Barack Obama, should he have an 8-year tenure, is believed to have the potential to increase by $3.7 trillion. True, the average federal budget under Bush was about $2.4 trillion. The 2009 budget is an estimated $3.1 trillion. The requested budget for 2010 – submitted by President Obama – is $3.55 trillion. Of course, Congress hasn’t approved it yet, but who here thinks they won’t?
“The war in Iraq isn’t going to end unti 2011!” True. But guess what? Obama’s exit strategy is essentially the exact same … with the troops leaving Iraq in 2011.
“Bush has an aggressive, murderous agenda when it comes to the Middle East.” Actually, President Obama has been more aggressive, at least that’s what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says. Obama has also hinted at possibly escalating the broader “war” to include Yemen as the U.S.’s next stop in the war on terror fight against Al Qaeda. It can be argued that Obama is just finishing what Bush started. Much can be said to the contrary. Iraq, as shown above, is on the same path it was on under Bush. Afghanistan is escalating – personally I don’t see Afghanistan as a cause to continue fighting for, to be honest, and I don’t see how that can ever be “won” when you don’t have a population that is either willing or able to support whatever changes the U.S. puts in there.
“George W. Bush ruined the economy and is responsible for our economic problems we’re dealing with right now.” Not all true. This is a hard one to lay blame solely on one person, or one administration for that matter. There is quite a lot of blame to go around for the economic downfall that happened, but the downward spiral started before George W. Bush even announced his candidacy. In fact, the GDP under President Bush grew. Too many regulations could have been a contributing cause to the economic downfall – I’m not an economist and, honestly, economics has always bored me beyond belief, but even I know the main cause of the failure: sub-prime mortgage loans that the Democrats forced the banks to dole out. The economy was actually in good shape until the final year of Bush’s presidency. I don’t know if this has to do with Bush’s spending or the Democratic-controlled Congress, because, like I said, economics bore me. I do, however, know that numbers don’t lie. I also know that the economy has worsened since Obama took office. I just think the blame for this one cannot rest solely on one person, but a collective group of all who have passed through the Washington, D.C. turnstile during the past 25-30 years.
“George Bush is/was an idiot.” I will not pass judgement. I mean, he is a Yale and Harvard educated person, which is more than what a lot of us can say. Have you ever heard President Obama speak without his teleprompter? He can be called an idiot as well. Just saying.
“Bush doesn’t support gay marriage!” Well, neither does President Obama.
“Bush was too partisan to get anything done.” You know, President Obama is partisan as well, and this causes problems, not because he can’t get anything done, but because he’s getting way too much done.
We do have one difference, though.
“Bush was anti-abortion.”
I didn’t write this to put President Bush on a pedastal or to be decidedly anti-President Obama. I wrote this merely to point out that everyone wanted change – where is it?
Bush to Obama evolution?
further reading:
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit (Heritage)
“With Pledges to Troops and Iraqis, Obama Details Pullout” (NYT)
“Our Troubled Economy Is a Response to Barack Obama’s Policies” (WSJ)
Budget of the United States Government
Federal State Local Public Spending United States 2010
