Of course, there are some problems with these accusations.
1. The statement on which they’re based Obama’s comment to Joe Wurzelbacher that he think[s] when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody was taken completely out of context. As a CNN fact check confirmed, McCain’s remark was an oversimplification of a five-minute-long conversation. Obama replied in great detail about his tax plan, and the “spread the wealth” remark was one small part of the conversation.

2. They’re just wrong. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, socialism is a political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. More importantly socialism is NOT capitalism. It is self-consciously anti-capitalist. You know capitalism? Free market? Private ownership? Imagine the exact opposite. That’s socialism. In order to get to socialism, capitalism must be completely dismantled. The two cannot co-exist. I hardly think Obama wanting to cut taxes for the middle and lower classes and raise them for the wealthy (in order to improve social services like health care and education for everyone) even remotely resembles the socialist desire to completely demolish the capitalist system.

3. They’re hypocritical. As Fox News’s Chris Wallace said to John McCain in an interview, But, Senator, you voted for the $700 billion bailout that’s being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn’t that socialism? Well, yes and no. Asking the general public to subsidize banks, to put their own private money into them, is putting the national banks in the hands of the general public. It is a type of collective control that resembles socialist objectives. However, the American people aren’t actually going to own or control the banks. They’re really just loaning out the money. So, it isn’t exactly socialism. But it is certainly a lot closer to it than Obama’s tax plan.

Also, a lot of American public services are already socialized. The police, the fire department, Emergency Medical Services, and public schooling are all socialized services (paid for by the public, and available to all for free). They’re also all great and humane services that any ‘civilized’ country should provide its citizens. So, what exactly is the problem with socialism? Why is it such an insult to be associated with it?

My personal problem with socialism is that it’s an unrealistic ideology. Oh sure, it sounds nice. Of course it would be great for everyone to have equal economic, political, and social power, for everyone to have equal opportunities, to be equally as well off as everyone else. However, for a society like that to exist, all its citizens would have to agree with the ideology and act accordingly to sustain such egalitarianism. And I’m sorry socialists, but it’s just not going to happen. People aren’t good. People aren’t fair. We’re selfish, greedy, ambitious, opportunistic. We are. We just are. Which is why socialism in practice often turns into dictatorship or authoritarian rule (think Cuba, China) most of the time, people just aren’t going to do right unless they’re forced to. And no matter how you slice it, I’m pretty sure the lack of civil freedoms associated with authoritarianism is a far cry from socialism’s ideals. (I’m not saying democracy in practice matches its ideals either, but I do think the disconnect is less wide than socialism’s.)

I don’t think America’s problem with socialism is the same as my personal one though. America’s problem with socialism is twofold. On a superficial level, we’re just a very nationalistic country, so much so that this is not really that far-fetched. We think we’re the best. We think everyone should be like us. We take difference of opinion (and even just difference itself) as a personal offense. It is as Richard Wright said in Black Boy, America “insists upon seeing the world in terms of good and bad, the holy and the evil, the high and the low, the white and the black.” It hugs the easy way of damning those whom it cannot understand, of excluding those who look different, and it salves its conscience with a self-draped cloak of righteousness. Don’t believe me? Go look up the Salem Witch Trials, Sand Creek Massacre, the Immigration Quota acts, Jim Crow, the Red Scare, Stonewall, miscegenation laws, the KKK you know what? Just go look up American history. The point is, the U.S. just doesn’t deal well with what’s different.

On a deeper level though, the problem is the nature of America itself. The country is based on two separate, often conflicting, ideologies democracy and capitalism and we’ve never really decided which one we’re more dedicated to. Sure, we like to say we’re all about freedom, liberty, equality. I mean, it’s right there in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” But if that’s what we really believe that everyone is equal, that everyone is entitled to health, freedom, and the pursuit of money (no really, that’s what they meant by happiness ), that government exists to ensure those rights, and that the government’s power derives from the people then we wouldn’t have a problem with socialism because (call me crazy but), when you put it that way, democracy and socialism, though not the same, sound pretty damn similar. We don’t go around hating constitutional monarchies for not being exactly our brand of democracy, so you wouldn’t think we’d go around hating socialism either.

But the truth is, in practice, America doesn’t care all that much about its pretty, democratic ideals. It cares about making money. Its exemplars are tycoons and entrepreneurs: Horatio Algiers, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller; Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Donald Trump. What really rankles the U.S. is not injustice, poverty, genocide, or suffering, but obstacles in the way of its money-making grind. So, not only is socialism intolerable because it (shock! horror!) cares more about citizens than wealth, but it also often happens to be taken up by non-White, non-European countries who don’t care about the U.S., don’t particularly like the U.S., and certainly are more interested in taking care of themselves than kissing the U.S.’s ass and lining its pockets (think Venezuela, Hugo Chavez). Those countries, those people, that don’t toe the U.S.’s line, don’t cough up the oil, don’t bolster America’s economy, well, apparently those countries are so bad, so horrible, so evil, so sinful, that even the word used to refer to them has become a curse. Sociali shhh, don’t say it! It’s the S-Word now y’all.

All things considered, it’s about a draw Matthew Yglesias, Think Progress

US presidential rivals Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have attacked each other over foreign policy and the economy, in their first debate.

Mr Obama said a $700bn (£380bn) plan to rescue the US economy was the “final verdict” on years of Republican rule.

He said Mr McCain had been “wrong” on Iraq and tried to link him to President Bush. The Republican senator described his rival as too inexperienced to lead.

Neither landed a knockout blow but polls suggested Mr Obama did better.

An immediate telephone poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp found 51% said Mr Obama had won, to 38% for Mr McCain.

A poll of uncommitted voters by CBS News found that 39% gave Mr Obama victory, 25% thought John McCain had won, and 36% thought it was a draw.

Both campaigns claimed victory, with Mr McCain’s team saying their candidate had shown a “mastery on national security issues” while Mr Obama’s aides said he had passed the commander-in-chief test “with flying colours”.

Tens of millions of Americans were expected to watch the debate on TV, with only about five weeks to go before the 4 November elections.  (Source: BBC NEWS | Americas | US rivals spar in first TV debate)

Editorial:

Yes, the debate was a technical draw.  The thing about that, however, is subjectively the debate will thus be a win for the Obama camp.  Why?  Because this was supposed to be the debate that John McCain won.  It’s his strength.  And there is no doubt he has experience in issues of foreign policy.  The loss is given that Obama held is own and, overall, appeared more Presidential than McCain.

McCain was wise to try and hammer the “naive” point, however he did it to an almost patronizing degree, which came off as him losing his composure.  However, any time he attacked Obama, the Illinois senator corrected him making McCain seem divisive and out to spin the facts.  Unfortunately for McCain, he did not notably correct Obama on any attack against the Arizona senator thus legitimizing the Democrat’s authority on the facts.

McCain was right to focus on “the surge”, but that’s about all he could say in terms of the “War in Iraq”.  As well, Obama was able to one-up McCain pointing out that the decision-makers on the strategy there essentially agree with his plans for future military action in the region (basically that Afghanistan is the real battleground).  McCain was at his best when explaining the fragility of the situation there, but did not follow that by appearing the most prepared to handle the matter.  In fact, Obama nailed him on handling delicate matters citing McCain’s “Bomb Iran” song.  However the junior Senator then gave away that advantage overemphasizing how wrong McCain was in his decision to go to Iraq rather than solidifying points that not only his past but his future judgment regarding the “War on Terror” have been most wise.

In terms of foreign policy overall, McCain was able to parade his experience but Obama matched that with foresight, unveiling that even the Bush administration is starting to enact policies that the Democratic Presidential nominee championed throughout his campaign while McCain leans toward the failed ways of the past.  They also argued different points of the fact that Kissinger did promote talks with Iran without preconditions (Kissinger later said “non-presidential” talks – something the Bush administration is currently pursuing).

In terms of economic policy, the debate kicked off with that, which is inevitable given the situation.  Neither candidate could comment on whether they were going to vote for the bill that was out at that time, however Obama laid out four core principles he thought should be in the bill.  The third debate between them will address the economy more.  Obama will be going into that debate as the stronger candidate given that McCain has previously acknowledged his weakness on economic issues.  And given the fact that the new economic bailout bill is (according to Sen. John Kerry) founded around the principles Obama laid out in the debate and supposedly better for the American taxpayer.

I’ve been reading a lot about people being disappointed with the first debate, but this is how debates always are.  As well, they are MUCH more subtle than people seem to remember every four years.  As they should be, both candidates know better than to shoot off at the mouth and sink their campaign.  In fact, a portion of this election will come down to who can keep the most level head and restore America’s relationships across the world.  Surely we’ve seen what a faux maverick can do in the White House.

Have you invested in your community today?

Investing time and money in our community is one of the greatest gifts we can pass to future generations. Economic recycling in our individual communities promotes small business, growth and stability. Every time a chain restaurant or store comes into your neighborhood it has the potential to close a family-owned mom and pop shop on your corner. Yes, the guy who knows your name and sells those amazing burritos around the block from you is scared to death at the prospect of Taco Bell moving in.

Don’t think where you spend your funds has an important impact? Consider the reasoning behind our 2008 economic stimulus checks. In order to give the economy a boost, the Bush Administration gave out up to $600 per working individual and $1,200 per married couple, plus $300 per child to qualifying individuals who filed a 2007 tax return. The top level of government understands that where consumers spend their dollars is crucial to our society and its livelihood.

Where you choose to spend your money needs to be a conscious decision. A small, local store helps you out, too. The store’s prices are usually lower than big box chains and a good portion of that business owner’s profits are used to pay taxes on the property he owns or rents. Those monies, in turn, go to the city or town you live in and are added to the budget. The same budget that shells out cash for services we all use and benefit from – city landscape grooming, neighborhood programs, the salaries of the teachers that educate our children, snow removal, the upkeep of underground pipes, the list is endless. Still don’t care? Well, what if that small business closes and the property is bought by another business that prefers to outsource their jobs to other countries in order to save money? Now, you’re not only out of a personable, self-sufficient business owner, but you’re also out of a few less jobs in your neighborhood.

Small business also encourages our youth to be entrepreneurs and headliners of their own destiny. Being self-employed is not impossible and keeping hard-earned dollars in the hands of our neighbors and back into our community is one of the best ways to help build a vital atmosphere. To learn more about small business and what it can do for you, visit www.sba.gov.

Until next time, be a blessing to a stranger.

- The Lioness