Many people, myself included, have suggested that President Obama, members of his administration, many Congressmen, and a host of other public officials are socialists. That suggestion is false. It is also true. It depends on which definition one uses, and there are many. One thing is certain, that millions of people feel a great unease about the policies and actions coming out of Washington, D.C. for a long time, a feeling of something alien, foreign to the American way of viewing things, antagonistic to the cherished ideals long-held by most Americans.
Members of the D.C. Cabal, not just in President Obama's time, but also during many previous administrations, may not fit someone's particular definition of socialists, but they certainly justify the label of "statist." Fifty six years ago, Leonard Read (1898-1983), the architect of the Foundation for Economic Education, had as good a description of statism as any I have seen: "It has many names: Fabianism, naziism, fascism, communism, socialism, state-interventionism, the welfare state, the planned economy, and all sorts of 'deals' - new, fair and otherwise. These labels, rather careless generalizations, have a common characteristic that identifies each and every one as essentially the same thing: the use of government - the organized police force - as the means to direct the creative activities of the people."
All statism is built upon a rationalization of apparently noble ideals; perfecting human nature, helping the oppressed, lifting the poor out of misery, alleviating unemployment, and so on. Some people see themselves as doing good through the use of force, benevolent dictators, so to speak, and the more good the better, according to their line of thinking. The more sincere, helpful, and energetic the statist sees himself or herself, however, the more people suffer. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all thought they were doing humanity, or at least a portion of humanity, a tremendous favor. Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro justify the poverty and oppression of the people in Zimbabwe and Cuba on the basis of fairness and equity.
There are small time statists, such as someone who uses zoning laws to infringe on the rights of neighbors to use their property peacefully and rightfully as they wish. There are big time statists, who use the coercive power of the state to hobble competitors or to gain monopoly privileges over a wide geographic area, such as powerful corporations and labor unions. There are military statists who use war to achieve power and wealth. There are charitable statists who do their charity by stealing money and resources from others, using the force of government.
The current crop of statist attacks on American liberty also goes by many names: No Child Left Behind, Troubled Assets Relief Program, economic stimulus packages, Hope and Change, health care reform, and so on. They all fit the mold described by Mr. Read decades ago. They all use of the coercive force of government to prevent free people from making their own decisions with their own lives and property. High unemployment is not a good thing, but it arises from government policies: the control of prices of labor, the restriction of individuals' rights to work and the terms to which they can agree, and stifling regulation of business. Recessions are not good, but they arise from government policies of monetary and credit expansion, creating unsustainable bubble economies which have to collapse. Poverty is not good, but long-term alleviation of poverty comes from economic freedom, allowing people engage in voluntary transactions, free of entangling regulation. It comes from allowing people to accumulate property without confiscation, through either ordinary taxes or the massive hidden tax called monetary inflation.
Statism has a corrosive effect on society and on the freedom and prosperity of the citizens. It doesn't matter which name it goes by. All that matters is the result. It is easy to get caught up in semantic battles when using different definitions of the terms. That battle detracts from the real issue, overbearing government and the use of force and coercion. Good results are what matter, not good intentions. However good are the intentions of any statist, stifling voluntary society, property rights and individual initiative produces bad results in the long term.
The word "socialist" has many negative connotations, and rightly so. Most American politicians don't want to be associated with it. That's fine, but whichever word they choose, they can't escape from the term "statist" if they propose the state, or any governing body, as the solver of all problems.
Dan McLaughlin is a columnist for The Post-Journal. Contact him at danmcl999@roadrunner.com. Visit www.aboutfreedom.org for more columns and information on freedom and limited government.