The dangers of 'socialism'.

Republicans in the US used to accuse their political opponents of being 'liberals' in a bid to portray them as weak and indecisive. It was odd that this worked for so long... it all it needed was for someone suitably red-blooded to stand up and say: 'yeah, I'm a liberal... what of it.' Instead Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry all managed to allow this innocent and inoffensive tag to become the accusation it was intended to be.

Can the same be said of John McCain's attempts to smear Barack Obama as a 'socialist'? After all, socialism is a perfectly respectable creed... its long but largely erroneous association with totalitarianism has enabled right-wing commentators to present it as an anti-democratic philosophy but that is far from the case. ‘Socialism’ or ‘social democracy’ (as it is more typically known these days) has more in common with Christianity than it does with communism.

It’s strange that the outgoing President and those of his philosophical ilk appear to be such devout Christians. After all, a political philosophy built upon Christ’s teachings would be anathema to the George W Bush for whom ‘compassionate conservatism’ was nothing more than a campaign slogan (and not one he dared revive for his re-election bid in 2004). Jesus Christ may have made some grandiose claims to get everyone’s attention but once they were listening he came up with ideas which would not sound out of place if they were being proposed at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference in the 1980s.

Quite how the right in America managed to appropriate Christ as representative of their laissez-faire approach is a mystery. Has this been achieved by well-meaning thinkers on the right who genuinely believe that the New Testament justifies an approach which suggests that society as a whole is best served by each individual pursuing their own selfish interests? Or are they using Christianity as a cloak to hide the unpalatable aspects of their political creed?

Interestingly, the right’s claim that Jesus is one of their own has come at the same time as the section of the left have largely rejected religiosity and this may even account for the tendency of politicians such as George W Bush to continually stress their Christian fervour. Could it be that this is part of an attempt to demonise the left as Godless? And could it be that this, in turn, contributes to the American notion that there is something dangerous about ‘socialism’?

Over the centuries having God on your side has often been important to people who know they cannot win the argument. This is because religions deal in ‘faith’ rather than ‘reason’... indeed, it isn’t sufficient to say religion is irrational... it’s anti-rational. Just look at how Christianity treats anyone who requests ‘proof’ of their arguments about an existence of God. They don’t just fail to provide it... they don’t even apologise for being unable to provide it... they suggest that the person requiring ‘proof’ is spiritually impoverished.

This is the stuff of Karl Rove’s dreams. Imagine being able to prevail every time you engage the opposition simply by telling them that their requests for rationale argument merely demonstrate their inability to properly understand. This paradox of Christianity has sustained the belief of the craven and the gullible for centuries and it sometimes feels as though elements of the right have tried to cloak their politicians in the same cloth.

It was never clear why Mondale, Dukakis et al didn’t combat the accusation that they were ‘liberal’ by loudly explaining that they are indeed liberal... and that the United States was founded by individuals who sought ‘liberal’ freedoms. This would surely have spiked the guns of their accusers. Barack Obama is not a socialist. Therefore, it would be not only unwise but untrue if were to adopt this approach when facing those whispering the ‘s’ word at him. But at least one of his most fervent champions, Hendrik Hertzberg, wrote an editorial piece in The New Yorker, which supportively conceded that his man probably is a socialist. It’s probably just as well that Hertzberg speaks to a niche audience and that Fox News and other element of the hysterical right didn’t draw broader attention to Hertzberg’s piece... as there’s no question that the ‘socialist’ tag could have damaged Obama.

Still, perhaps the transition from stigmatising leftist candidates as ‘liberal’ to the altogether more damning ‘socialist’ represents progress. Can we expect the next generation of left-leaning politicians to be characterised as ‘communists’ by the scaremongers of the right?