Can We Call Him A Socialist Now?

Via Buzzfeed

Well, maybe.  He spoke at a DSA event.  But maybe the speakers weren't socialists.  Let's see.

According to Wikipedia's entry on William Julius Wilson, Wilson "...identified himself as a Rustin-style social democrat. Wilson has served on the advisory board of Social Democrats, USA" and according to the entry on him he is a long time DSA Affiliate and,

"In 1989, William Julius Wilson, was a member of Democratic Socialists of America. ...

In 1990, Democratic Socialists of America was selling a list of pamphlets, mainly by members, including "Democratic Promise:Ideas for Turning America in a Progressive Direction", by Michael Harrington, William Julius Wilson and Robert Kuttner and "Poverty", by Michael Harrington, with contributions from Barbara Ehrenreich, William Julius Wilson and Mark Levinson.["

Professor Michael Dawson:  it is interesting that in his Curriculum Vitae, he does not include his work with the DSA, not even in the list of 'selected speeches. He's also a founder of the Black Radical Congress, which is a socialist organization.

Toni Preckwinkle: Sodahead (I know) identifies her as a leftist Democrat with ties to Chicago's socialist community.  She did speak at:

The Memorial Service for Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member Saul Mendelson was held on Sunday, March 29, 1998, at the First Unitarian Church, Chicago^[7].
The service was MC'd by a retired colleague, Bob Clark. Carl Shier of DSA, spoke first and was followed by Saul's friend Deborah Meier, "a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient who is now starting a new school in Boston". Amy Isaacs, National Director of the Americans for Democratic Action, spoke of what "Saul had meant on foreign affairs to the ADA".
Other speakers included Communist Party USA aligned Senator Carol Moseley Braun, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, State SenatorBarack Obama, Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie and "a good friend from New York", Myra Russell.
The concluding remarks were made by an old friend, Harriet Lefley, a former Trotskyist with Saul Mendelson in the 1940s, who was then Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami Medical School.

Eulogies also came from Quinn Brisben, (Socialist Party USA presidential candidate 1976, 1992) and David McReynolds (Socialist Party USA presidential candidate 1980, 2000).
Both Brisben and McReynolds are also members of Democratic Socialists of America.

That's an awful lot of socialists in one place.

Professor Joseph Schwartz, identified in New Ground 45, March - April, 1996 as "a member of DSA's National Political Committee."

There is a lot of well documented dot connecting here. I would call it must reading

So what did Obama have to say?  According to the New Ground 45 issue   his theme was three areas state government should be doing more:

The first is "human capital development". By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a "workforce preparation strategy". Public education requires equality in funding. It's not that money is the only solution to public education's problems but it's a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it's also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By "workforce preparation strategy", Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs

However,  The Democrat Socialists of America say that Obama is not a socialist. 

Hmmm. Would they have any reason to say this if it wasn't true?  I think we know that they would.  I also think that even supporters of Obama would have to agree that this is not how he portrayed himself during the last election.  Also interesting- somewhere in that list of links, Obama was endorcing gay marriage in the 1990s.  So we know his position on the issue did not 'evolve' as he has attempted to portray it, but rather, his revelation of his actual position has been a carefully orchestrated, long, slow strip-tease. This methodology, btw, is, IMO, obviously his strategy for other hard-core socialist policies.  Obama care is meant to be a failure, because then he can step in and 'reform' it by further government intervention.

The DSA did endorse Obama in the state election of 1996, the same year he spoke for them.  If you've studied the way Obama won that election, you'll find this sentence a bit ironic:

Luckily, Mr. Obama does not have any opposition in the primary. His opponents have all dropped out or were ruled off the ballot. But if you would like to contribute to his campaign, make the check payable to Friends of Barack Obama, 2154 E. 71st, Chicago, IL 60649. If you would like to become involved in his campaign...

He ran unopposed because sealed divorce records of at least one opponent were inexplicably leaked to the media and Toni Preckwinkle had "successfully challenged the signatures of Obama's opponents in the Democratic Primary for the Illinois Senate, allowing Obama to run unopposed." (her entry on Wikipedia)




It's obvious that discussing his socialist leanings is effective to some degree, because Obama's comedy team Jon Stewart did a segment on it.  It's funny, because Stewart and his team are funny people, but Once you get done laughing, there really isn't anything substantive there.


Obama was a member of the Chicago Socialist Party in the 90's.

Let's change things up for a moment. Let's swap out all the above references to Obama to some Republican candidate.  And let's swap out all the references to the DSA or other socialist groups to, say, a Libertarian group.  Would it be unfair or a 'smear' to suggest that candidate had definite libertarian leanings based on his long time association with libertarian politics and people?  No, it would be fair.  So what's offensive about pointing out Obama's long time associations and connections with socialists,and socialist meetings?

I wish we had such a candidate as my hypothetical one, somebody with libertarian leanings, btw. 

But we don't have that.  We have a socialist President and yet another 'pragmatic' Republican "who will trade away principle for temporary power and expect my gratitude for the privilege."