Obama and the S Word
Rachael Jolley looks at the fundamental misunderstandings in the US that allow John McCain and Sarah
By Rachael Jolley Published 29 October 2008
In these politically incorrect times across the pond, desperate times call for desperate words, so the Republicans in all their glory have started bandying around accusations of “socialism” against Obama.
The S word throws a bigger, scarier shadow in the US than it does in Europe. Over there it is rather like saying you have hidden a red under the bed, and you think Stalin might be a good man for the next secretary of state.
You have to remember that the Americans are still a bit nostalgic about the Cold War – a moment when at least they knew who their enemies were, and that they were definitely the good guys.
And then there was the 1950s when McCarthy thought anyone who had ever flirted with reading the Communist Manifesto should be kicked out of the country.
All of which means that the definition of the word socialism in the good ole USA hasn’t moved on much from those heady days.
There is no idea of the Swedish model of democratic socialism say, with its excellent health care, free market economy and highly rated standard of living.
Nope, socialism, is something nasty that sits out in the shadows, waiting to sneak in. All of which leads to horrified Americans in mid western states telling reporters: “I believe socialism is at our back door” when they mean “hell, a Democrat might get into the White House”.
Ironically, heartland blue collar Republicans who fear “socialism” are often the ones that would benefit from a socialised healthcare plan, where doctors were free at the point of use. Not that this is on offer anyway.
One mother quoted in the Sunday Times this weekend said she would hate to see socialist healthcare in the US because her daughter had Down’s syndrome and had to have surgery the day after she was born. The woman seemed to think this would not have happened under a "socialist" healthcare system.
It’s bizarre when you think about it. Does anyone in this country believe that the NHS would not take care of a child with Down's syndrome, or in France for that matter?
But in the US where no doubt that operation cost thousands of dollars, and where the uninsured and poor would struggle to pay off huge healthcare bills, the poorest in society seem to be vehemently opposed to moving towards a universal healthcare system because they think it would be too socialist.
In an interview with me earlier this year, Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said you just could not use that S word in a political argument in the US and expect to come away the winner.
So no wonder then that a truly desperate McCain will try and pull the scary socialist card out of the bag in the last desperate dog days of his campaign. Call the Democratic candidate a socialist and you might make voters run for cover.
And what is it that Obama is planning that is so socialist? Well, it’s hard to tell: his health plan hardly fits the model; he hasn’t suggested he is going to nationalise any industries or overthrow the system. His tax plan is hardly a red rag either, slightly higher taxes for those earning over $250,000 – blimely he’ll be moving to the Kremlin next.
America’s never going to make that sharp left that some commentators are predicting, frankly because Americans wouldm#t know where to find it. Both parties are to the right of most mainstream western European politicians, whatever their position.
Then perhaps this election will bring to an end the idea that the scariest thing that could ever happen to America is a soupcon of socialism. But then again elephants might fly.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


22 comments
These are not only "...politically incorrect times across the pond..." but elsewhere too - Britain, Australia - all Anglo nations. The reason is the past has never been truly resolved to everbody's satisfaction. Its not good enough to merely have a pretentious sector of society functioning as PC (politically-correct) police.
But Rachael Jolley misses the point entirely when she imagines that accusations of “socialism” against Obama have anything to do with the cold war or international politics. The "S word" is simply code for "black" or "negro" and that is the residual white racism that the Democrats have failed to address.
Instead of an election which would unite Americans, it has become one of the most divisive ever. By running their best candidates against each other, the Democrats have spawned a sexist campaign which has then turned to the other prejudice deep in US history and the American psyche.
The truth is that most white Americans are not pleased to have a black leader. That goes for many Latinos as well. It would have worked out far better if the Democrats had just accepted Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as a single team from the beginning. That was never good enough for the politically-correct pretenders, though.
The rresult is that neither side will be able to satisfy the American populace. The Democrats have failed to see this and the Republicans are assiduously filling the gap as far as women are concerned as well as white people who are still terrified of black power ruling their country. Perhaps they actually have a reason to feel that way, too?
McCarthy witch-hunt was started by Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagon was the president of the actors union. Both went onto become strong right-wing Presidents. So the anti-socialist doctrines are embellished within the fabric of present day voters, notwithstanding polsters with all their techno babble.
The latest Gallup poll based on a 3 day rolling average says its too close to call. So are other opinion polls which give Obama a big lead, going to sink his Whitehouse quest>
it is an oft noted fact, that those who most vehemently slander their opponents using overly-laden terminology, are quite often the ones who are actually closest to the position they are slandering.
for instance McCarthy gave every indication to shrewd observers of being against the very thing that he alleged his "communist" enemies were against - free speech, rights for workers (you will note they were quite thin on the ground in all the marxist-based revolutions, yet he cited them as "proof" of communist activities), abilty to critique Govt and its relationship with the corporations. You can see this VERY clearly on tWoT, where it is the Bush regime that are the real terrorists, whether or not they had a hand in the attack on the WTC.
now, i have no particular 'love' or even admiration for Obama, his plans are little more than papering over the cracks and continuing the disastrous foreign policy of recent years, and it is quite hard to find any real substantive difference between him and McCain - except that McCain has a right-wing loonie job as VP, and it is quite clear (especially, one would imagine, to him) that his life expectancy would be reduced considerably should she be the one to take over if he 'bought a farm'.
as for the charge of socialism - ROFL. The right-wing economic bail-out plan is nothing more than socialism for the ultra-wealthy, and will entail harsh restrictions upon the majority that will echo the days of the USSR. Normal American citizens should be so lucky as to get a Scandinavian Social Democratic leader, but then no doubt (S)he would also rapidly purchase a nice plot right next to McCain's.
Empire is a dirty business, and it dirties everything and everyone it touches. We British should know that better than most, indeed it is the Imperial relics that are driving our financial and economic go-cart over the cliff.
Goodness knows who will win this presidential race - although given the preference that Americans have for idiotic and disastrous rulers, it's probably a safe bet that McCain will win.
But if McCain loses as predicted, it will have been entirely his own fault. To begin with, there was very little chance of a black person being elected as president. Yes, Obama is an inspirational orator and clearly attracts huge crowds. Indeed, his stated policies may just be what America needs. But I still doubt that if they had an alternative, most whites would have voted for a black man, in a country where blacks still can't walk the streets safely in certain neighbourhoods, and where the races live virtually apart. This was why, in spite of the utter disaster that the Bush regime was always bound to be, McCain (one of Bush's cheerleaders) was neck-and-neck with Obama at the outset - and was even edging forward.
And if he loses (as I hope he will), it would not be because of his appointment of the emetic Sarah Palin as running mate, as many observers have suggested. Many Americans, if anything, rather admire her mindboggling ignorance, zealotry and hypocrisy. It would be due to his deliberate abandonment of policy at a time when his people are facing extreme economic hardship. Perhaps Americans are not that stupid, after all...
"And if he loses (as I hope he will), it would not be because of his appointment of the emetic Sarah Palin as running mate, as many observers have suggested. Many Americans, if anything, rather admire her mindboggling ignorance, zealotry and hypocrisy."
i gracefully concede the point. :)
"It would be due to his deliberate abandonment of policy at a time when his people are facing extreme economic hardship. Perhaps Americans are not that stupid, after all..."
that will depend if placing their fate in the hands of Obama - albeit, in their One Party Two Wings electoral system they didn't really have much choice - turns out to be a wise choice, ie Obama actually *does* adopt a social democratic model instead of the looming technological-authoritarian model. Of course, even if he doesn't, its still a more rational choice than McCain, given the VPs.
if the Americans truly weren't stupid, they would be reading discussions like these:
http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2008/10/economy-world-crisis-financial
http://www.newstatesman.com/south-america/2007/08/argentina-workers-move...
but they DO have a functioning civil society, which is a sign of healthy intelligence within the communities. I don't think they're "stupid" at all (although they do seem to produce more than the average of individuals who fit that description, granted), but i would bet that if they could see how their society is portrayed by the American media transmitted to us, they might wonder themselves how i could be so optimistic. ;)
When posting on the BBC Radio 4 Today message boards, I used to call Bin Laden "the pied piper of young Muslim men"....a NWO media creation. I now use the same anology on Amerikans...."Obama is the pied piper of desperate Americans".
Joe Biden has already let slip in private meetings, that Obama will face a major crisis (NWO cnstruct) which will have many Americans crawling up the walls and the rest of the world running for the loo.
Something has to happen that will free Obama from his shallow promises and allow the NWO to continue rampaging and looting across the world. And all this done by a KENYAN!!!!!LOL
BTW, a Google search of "Obama is a Kenyan" produced 5,350,000 results in 0.20 seconds. Truth and law matter not in this NWO controlled world, as US judges and Governors block all truthseekers to Obama`s real identity. A man who has only spent two years in the Senate and in those two years has received more funding than 20 year Senators.....for all I know, he`s proberly a CIA manchurian MK-Ultra plant.LOL
USA is not a capitalist Economy. We are a mixed economy. The "poorest of the poor" are not without health-care here. They have Medicaid, a socialized, gov't run health insurance. Our distaste for Socialism has little to do with The Red in the Closet, and more to do with our Puritan tradition of working for what we get and the belief that we should benefit from that hard work without having someone take it from us in order to give it to someone else.
We are very benevolent people. We give a lot to each other and to the rest of the world. We simply do not want the gov't to force us to do so.
Something that your article fails to address is the question of why it is that the gov't is better qualified to practice benevolence that the individual person who actually earned the resources.
Dane; I live in London and over many years, I`ve had lot of contact with Americans. In the main, they are business people and as a generalisation, they are Republicans. These right leaning Americans also visit the reast of Europe. From talking with them, it is clear they are VERY DISTURBED by our cohesive society.
Yes, some Americans can get Medicaid, but somewhere between 50 and 70+ million Americans have NO ACCESS to any healthcare. Some retired Americans have simple choice, buy cat food, so they can afford the drugs they need, or eat and go without the drugs they need....it not nice, its not a very civilised country. In America, you can work all your life, bring up a family, retire, get ill and lose the lot, because of massive medical bills.
You claim that America is a mixed economy...if it is and I VERY much doubt your claim, then why is US inferstructure falling apart? Lets be honest, the US is structurally falling apart. Most State and city government are on the bring of going bankrupt....never mind the dire state of Federal finances and you are heading for the worst economic construct in living memory and you are doing this from a BUST position.
Sure, there are some very wealthy Americans and they do give to charity, but the vast majority of this money goes to the arts, medical research and elite schools. It is clear that this does not work. Below is a link with a very good article, which has been written by an AMERICAN.
http://www.webofdebt.com/article/manipulation.php
Britian under Thatcher, Major and Blair has moved towards the US model. Our welfare safety net is now SO weak that Brown is seriously worried about people being kicked out of their homes.
Your last line is seriously worrying. The US hasn`t earned its way since the mid 70`s. The US has survived by making war and bullying other nations to send their hard EARNED savings to the US. The US requires over $3 billion of global savings just so they can pay the interest on US debt.
"Our distaste for Socialism has little to do with The Red in the Closet, and more to do with our Puritan tradition of working for what we get and the belief that we should benefit from that hard work without having someone take it from us in order to give it to someone else."
yet you do precisely that to the owners of the companies you work in.