Of Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, And Obama

Bookmark and Share
Posted by

A lot of talk went on early in Obama’s presidency, calling him alternately- fascist, communist/socialist, or liberal.  But what do these terms really mean?  It’s easy to simply name call, but in reality these terms have meaning beyond what people realize.  Some of them are correctly attributed, but the truth is more complicated to discern.


Fascism is defined in answers.com as:

  1. often Fascism
    1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
  2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late

The thing that sticks out as relating to Obama is the socioeconomic controls, i.e., AIG, GM, Chrysler, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc. Now to be fair, Obama was no different than Bush in this regard. When Bush signed TARP into law the nation took a large step toward Fascism. Obama seems to have amplified this economic policy in continuing bailout stimulis, and continuing the TARP program to control the financial sector.   The control exerted on the “private” economy by this act was/is breathtaking.  But by the government’s influence over large parts of our economy (you can add private health insurers to that list now) we have entered the realm of a Fascist economic model.  The health insurers will get 40 million new customers by Government fiat, and in exchange they must give up control of their companies and be relegated to the role of a Government pensioner- but in this way fascism is little different than socialism in that if you no longer control your property, is it really yours?  What good is it to own a car if you are not allowed to drive?  How about the other aspects of fascism- how does Obama measure up there?  Well, we do have a large degree of centralization under the President’s authority and that of his Czars, but there are no acts of violence yet aimed at the opposition- so AS of yet, he has not fulfilled the fascist mold, entirely.


Socialism is defined by ask.com as:

  1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
  2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

This one is tricky because the Federal Government does not own the economy, per se, but by taxing to the level that will be required for the implementation of Obama’s plans the majority of wealth in America will be controlled by the Government.
The socialized health care is just one example of where the future taxes will be levied.  In it is a 10% tax on tanning beds, which makes sense by the way.  If we plan on learning to live with the socialized health care we need to tax things that hurt you.  Tanning causes cancer, which costs money from the public treasury.  If you accept that logic (which by the way implies you belong to the Government) then you must see the logic in raising taxes on sugar- which causes tooth decay and obesity (the number one cause of health problems in America) and therefore costs the public treasury more money.  While we’re at it we should raise the taxes on gasoline- this one is a two-fer! It will prevent people from driving- which will prevent car accidents, AND CO2 emissions!   We should prohibit hang-gliding because it is more hazardous than just sitting on the couch… oh wait, the obesity thing.  Instead, we should institute mandatory physical training on a daily basis as a condition of slavery, servitutde, citizenship, this will promote healthy living while we starve.


This is the one that gets me. The dictionary has a dozen or more meanings for liberal, but the most prevalent (and the historical basis) for the word is ‘free from government intervention.’  This one does not describe Obama at all.  The better term for the Democratic party of the early 21st Century is ‘Statist.’


Statist is defined as :

The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

The practice of the government taking over authority at the expense of the citizens liberty is what best describes Obama, in my opinion.  His plan is to create a “soft” authoritarian state in which the Government will have the full authority to right all wrongs, provide for all needs, and equalize outcomes for the entire populace with vast redistribution of wealth from the earners to those who (either by unwillingness to or inability to) have not earned enough to live.  To do this they must create villains to take the blame for failed government policies like health insurers who would not exist (in their current form) except for the price controls from the second world war.  The third-party payer system is the largest single contributor to the skyrocketing health care costs that can be named and yet the cure is seen as a complete third party in the form of the Government to take their place.

In conclusion, while it may be early to call Obama a socialist or a Fascist, he is on track.  His plan for cap and trade, his successful passage of health care reform over the objections of the American people, his nationalization of industries from banking to automotive to insurance to financial is difficult to deny.  Indeed, the whole exercise of distinguishing is an exercise in futility, as it is a distinction without a difference.  The socialist takes ownership of private property, but the fascist takes ownership by virtue of control.  The fascist controls their subjects by censorship and terror, so too does the socialist.  The fascist has a dictator so the socialist has a secretary general.  There is no real difference except in the spelling.

In Liberty,

Tim Reeves

Tim Reeves is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Oregon Tenth Amendment Center.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

Support the Tenth Amendment Center!

10 Responses to “Of Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, And Obama”

  1. cna training says:

    What a great resource!

  2. cna training says:

    Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article

  3. Cary says:

    "While we’re at it we should raise the taxes on gasoline- this one is a two-fer! It will prevent people from driving- which will prevent car accidents, AND CO2 emissions!"

    I see it as a three-fer: prevent car accidents, CO2 emissions, AND obesity when people actually have to walk the 1/4 mile to the 7-11 for a twinkie.

  4. richsurfing says:

    Yes, I'd forgotten that the bankers where brought together in a room and pretty much forced to sign on to TARP whether they wanted to or not. SThere's so much corruption & dirty politics it's hard to remember it all.


  5. If Tarp had been simply loans, you may have a point, but as soon as it was enacted rather than loaning money, they simply bought stock, and even required that all banks (weather insolvant or not) take it. While this is an interesting distinction, it is not a difference, business cannot be seen as independant entities if they are funded partially by government largess. when we decided it was in our interest to favor certain politically connected firms with bailouts we crossed a threshhold into fascism.

  6. richsurfing says:

    I disagree with the statements; "Obama was no different than Bush in this regard. When Bush signed TARP into law the nation took a large step toward Fascism." My understanding is that TARP was set up as loans to prop-up the financial system and save it from collapse in the panic of the time. Now while I disagree with Bush's stupid statement of abandoning the free-market to save it, he did not put strings in TARP to take over or control any corporation, they simply had to pay the loans back. That was done by Obama. Obama revised TARP and changed it's original intent. If my understanding is accurate, then it is wrong to lump Bush in with Obama as a moving us toward Fascism, in this example.

  7. good point, my intent with this article was mostly to describe socialism, and fascism as 1 and the same and to reclaim the title of Liberal as a positive freedom embracing ideology

  8. Paracelt says:

    Good analysis, but I have to say that Obama will never qualify as a Fascist. The characteristic that seems to distinguish Fascists from other statists is the use of nationalism to centralize control. Obama will never have anything positive to say about America. (or is that now Amerika?)

  9. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by greychampion. greychampion said: newStream ©: Of Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, And Obama | Oregon Tenth … http://bit.ly/9gOFYU […]