THE DAILY GRIND: Cocktail Party Socialists & Right-Wing Ideologues Suck & Here's Why

In Warren Beatty's 1998 political satire, "Bulworth," there is a funny scene where Beatty, playing a disillusioned Senator, goes nuts at a political luncheon. He starts rapping (badly) about the evils of oil companies and lobbyists. At one point, about 2:50 in the clip above, Beatty brings up health care, saying, "Come on now, let me hear that dirty word-- socialism!" The Senator's staff is seen gasping, knowing that their man has truly gone off the deep end.

It's 2009. Welcome to the deep end. With Obama's stimulus package and sweeping new budget, the "dirty word" is being uttered a lot these days. Pretty much every conservative with a keyboard has called Obama "socialist," and pretty much every liberal has roundly condemned them for it. As usual, Republicans are called red-baiting, closet racists, and Democrats are accused of being crypto-Commies openly waging class warfare. If Obama is allowed to implement his new programs, say conservatives, the country will soon be awash in violent, gay porn addicts who use our tax dollars to buy heroin. If Obama is stopped, liberals say, it proves that Republicans want to eat the poor.

The Grinder, as always, remains elegantly above the fray.

First, let's define our terms. Socialism is not a rigid doctrine or a planned set of programs. It's a vague concept that means very different things to different people; much like how "dating" can either mean "intend to marry" or "currently banging," depending on who's talking. But most socialists (real ones, like in Europe) generally share a belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates wealth among a small segment of society. They advocate for a society in which wealth is distributed more evenly, usually be means of social welfare programs. In it's most extreme, Marxist form, socialism means government controls the means of production and distribution of goods. Obama then is, emphatically, not a Socialist. He is, however, a socialist. Little "s."

See how easy that was? Problem solved.

Look at it this way; Obama wants government intrusion into health care, which you may or may not like, but it's not the same as government owning all the hospitals. He wants to force midsize banks to merge in return for the Federal loan guarantees, which is heavy-handed, but not the same as the government owning all the banks. When the US government, as part of an auto company bailout, dictates how many cars and trucks GM can make each year, you will know that "Big S" Socialism has arrived.

On principle, though, socialist ideals piss us off. Government, as any sentient adult knows, can screw things up just as badly, if not worse, than big business. So that trade-off is basically a wash. Plus, in the USA at least, isn't the government supposed to provide exactly the same services for all citizens, not try to help one group over another? Finally, there is something galling, something which offends the Grinder's free-spirited, rugged individualism-loving sensibility, to suggest that there is any such thing as "too much money." As far as we are concerned, the more money that gets made by anyone, the better it is for all. If someone has their money legally, whether they worked for it or inherited from a crazy aunt, it isn't the government's business to decide someone else needs it more. Life isn't fair, folks, and not even the mighty US government can make it so.

But broad principles must give way to pragmatic realities, and we are willing to be proved wrong. In fact, we are kind of hoping for it. Maybe Obama's plans will work, not just giving the country an economic boost, but ultimately making the nation healthier and better-educated, so wealthier and more free. Being right on abstract economic theories isn't nearly as exciting for us as the prospect of seeing America thrive.