Is Obama a Socialist?

[gagged_Louise]

Best regards Ian, but if you think I just jumped in out of the blue you should take a look at the posts immediately before my first one; they're at the bottom of the page before this one. I was following up on TantricSoul's post about political speech in high and low-context cultures. He was contrsting Asia and the U.S., I was taking that contrast to the U.S. vs Europe - and guess what, he recognized the link as soon as he read my post. I'm absolutely okay with the fact that Obama doesn't talk like in a Hollywood movie when he's addressing other nations or speaking on tv, the world isn't Hollywood.

Returning ot the header question, no, Obama is not a socialist. Besides the celebrated quote that Steelish pulled up is garbled, what Obama said back in 2001 (it's on Youtube) was that the constitution was an admirable document (and so it should be respected, worked from and held in high estem) but that it was also marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18rth century society it came from. The society was flawed in a number of ways, he never sadi the text was "fundamentally flawed". Okay, if you think the text is to be read as if it was handed down from heaven, then this might be the same kind of thing, but maybe he doesn't. Not very sensational. Back in the day slavery was taken for granted, absolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic - and that had a few side effects on how the political system evolved. Even if the U.S. constitution doesn't mention slaves outrright, the way it was written and interpreted presupposed slavery (and segregation) for a long time. What's the trouble?

[DuncanONeil]

Yes Obama is Socialist in his beliefs.

As to your interpretation of his comments in 2001. I am afraid I must disagree. In saying "it is marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18th century" he is speaking of the Constitution. That statement means he believes that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. His own words! Surely crafted to flow in a fashion for people to come to the conclusion you reached. But your conclusion is in error.

On to slavery! "(A)bsolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic". This is simply untrue. Many wanted to eliminate slavery. But in doing so they would have doomed the birth of the United States. The language extent in the Constitution was in fact a compromise between the pro and anti slavery blocs in the convention.

(W)hat Obama said back in 2001 (it's on Youtube) was that the constitution was an admirable document (and so it should be respected, worked from and held in high estem) but that it was also marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18rth century society it came from. ... Back in the day slavery was taken for granted, absolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic -