Obama's Political Philosophy: Get It Right People

Get Paid to Write

Share your opinion and expertise and make residual income at the same time by signing up for Hubpages.

This is an example of the lack of understanding of our president's political philosophy.
This is an example of the lack of understanding of our president's political philosophy. | Source

Today I was reading this article about a protest in Washington over, among other things, health care reform & the wild and irresponsible spending of our government. I was enjoying the article because for the most part I agree with what was being said and the intent behind the protest. Then, I saw the picture you see on the right. It just pissed me off. Too often I see this on both the left and the right. A complete lack of understanding when it comes to political philosophy. Granted, I tend to see this more often on the right, but both sides are guilty of ignorance and stupidity. A perfect example of this was the depiction of President Obama as a monkey during the race for presidency, which coincidentally was done previously to President Bush. In both cases, the use was distasteful and low. But what frustrates me more is the lack of understanding were each person stands in politics. Comparisons of Obama to Hitler, are way off base sinmply based off of the philosophical differences of each.

More accurate, while extreme, depictions of President Obama's Political Philosophy

Putting aside the fact that I do not agree with President Obama, I want to clarify this issue of where he stands on the political continuum as compared to the Nazi Party and Communism.

The Nazi movement was that of Fascism, a movement of extreme loyalty to ones country (I am keeping it simple. There is more to them than that, but work with me.). Nazism is extreme right wing philosophy. It has some ideas that are very different from the right wing of the United States, but not by much. Is one were to want to make a comparison to any individual in political office, past or present, you could argue that F.D.R. could have very easily become a Fascist, or even George W. Bush. Yes, F.D.R. was Democrat, but his policies, at least initially, were more centrist. This is all conjecture mind you, and I am not accusing either of being Fascist or Nazi.

President Obama, on the other hand, leans towards the left. Socialism is his focus more than anything. This is the idea of redistributing wealth through government programs and taxation. Socialism is basically a lighter version of Communism (some would argue it is a  check point on the road to Communism) which is an extreme redistribution of wealth by ultimately abolishing private property and making a strong central government in charge. Here are some people who under stand where President Obama stands on the political continuum.

Given the nature of the political debate that is raging in the United States, I can't help shaking my head at all the juvinalle behavior that is displaced on a regular basis by all sides. These things being debated have the potential to change America as we know it. One side claims to be listening to what they other is saying then doing the exact opposite. Both side are focusing on extremes to the problem rather than looking for a solution that can benefit the entire nation. Political corruption is rampant in both parties and no one is considering the possibility that this entire petty battle is tearing America a part. All that aside, I really wish people would know what they are talking about when they make a political statement or sign.

More by this Author


Comments 8 comments

OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

The real problem is the two dominant party system, it is at the root cause of the failing governmnet and fallen country.


ibbarkingmad profile image

ibbarkingmad 6 years ago from Utah Author

Yes, when there is just the Demicans and the Republicrats, it is rather hard for other parties to present a platform and have any chance for a legitimate power shift. The US has a history of 3rd party attempts, but they have all failed because the 2 dominant parties have an interest in keeping them out. The laws passed in each state with regulations for parties to be form are a perfect example of how they maintain control. The largest problem is that the voting population is NOT educated on issue. We have talking heads on the radio and TV telling us what to think and VERY FEW encourage us to educate ourselves with few exceptions.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

IB

I agree, that is it in a nutshell


cbl2988 profile image

cbl2988 5 years ago from Mesa, Arizona

There is one point I have to disagree with you about and that is your definitions of Nazism and fascism. First is the false idea--originating from fascists and Nazis themselves--that Nazis are fascist and fascists are "right wing". That is absolutely false. They wanted to distinguish themselves from the Soviet Communists, who had some differences, but were very similar.

To understand this, we must first define Socialism:

Socialism—any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Fascism--a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)

Nazism--(National Socialism. The Nazi Party was officially called the National Socialist German Workers' Party) a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader.

The point is, fascism and Nazism are types of socialism, Nazism being "more socialist" (not really) than fascism as fascism does not advocate the abolishment of private property (which National Socialism does) but "allows" private property for individuals but does not give individuals control of property, which is reserved for the State.

Ayn Rand said it best when she pointed out that ownership without control is a contradiction in terms. Ownership without the right to decide how to use and dispose of said property is meaningless. There is no ownership without control.

She goes on and says that socialism is more honest while fascism tries to hide the fact that it is a type of socialism.

So Nazism and Fascism are actually left-wing, not right-wing (which is actually a false dichotomy in itself, mostly because they are about the same).


ibbarkingmad profile image

ibbarkingmad 5 years ago from Utah Author

You are right about the translation for Nazi. However the Nazi's did not adhere to the socialist ideals per The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer as well as other reputable sources. Hitler used the Nazi party to accomplish what he wanted and justified his behavior as such. Fascism is extreme nationalism, which one could argue is right wing.


cbl2988 profile image

cbl2988 5 years ago from Mesa, Arizona

Can you give any specifics? As far as I understand, the Nazis politico-economics is not much different from that of the Soviets. They nationalized/socialized most of the economy (the soviets being a little more explicit).

The Soviets, the Chinese, and the North Koreans didn't "adhere to socialist ideals" either. Does that mean that they weren't socialist?

One correction you should make. Fascism isn't extreme nationalism, but extreme nationalism is a characteristic of Fascism. That is like saying that all rectangles are squares. I do not argue that nationalism is not "right-wing". I do argue, however, that the Soviets, Cambodians, and the North Koreans were/are extreme nationalists as well (although, probably not as explicitly). Does that make them Fascists?

The other funny thing is, both the Nazis and the Soviets were racists and anti-Semites (The Nazis were, of course, more explicit--especially with their anti-Semitism).

The truth is, they are all slightly different fabrics cut from the same cloth. Both Fascism and Nazism are variants of socialism.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

The nazi's, I believe are much closer related to a move on the left than on the right. Almost all we're former soocialists or collectivists who despised the rights of individuals in favor of collective rights. Fascism and socialism are both collectivist, fascism is just the inevitable next step to the failure of socialist policies. German leaders before Hitler we're not opposed to socialist policies per say, only the elements of socialism which had regard for individual freedoms.


uncorrectedvision profile image

uncorrectedvision 5 years ago from Indiana

I appreciate your effort here but I disagree with some small but important ideas contain here in. Conservative political and economic philosophy bares little resemblance to the centrally directed and party controlled economy and political system of either the Fascists or the Nazis. Both require taking substantial power from individuals in economic decisions.

Another place I disagree is that the problem is Republicans and Democrats. It is the operational philosophy of modern American liberalism.

Last time American conservatives faced a major internal problem they split dissolving the Whigs and creating the Republican Party over slavery.

This time around the hard core GOP establishment will yield to the more conservative Tea Party Republicans or face the same thing. Ultimately there is a conservative movement in American and it started with the Revolution and hasn't stopped but is always in danger of being squelched by the long time enemy of individual liberty - government.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working