The New York Times has gone gaga. There is a terrible, ignorant editorial in there today about Obama's speech to school children:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/opinion/05sat2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
The editorial defends Obama, and rightly points out that this is not socialism, but then goes on an insane tear against socialism and its evil history. For someone educated in Britain, and a historian knowledgeable about the history of socialism, this is an incredibly ignorant mistake for the NYT. They meant, I assume, communism or Stalinism, not socialism--unless they are now the Washington Times. I wrote a letter which was a shortened version of the following:
To the Editor,
In your editorial today “Respect Your Children” you state, correctly, that there is “nothing socialist in any of Mr. Obama’s policies”, but then add “as anyone with a passing knowledge of socialism and its evil history knows”. You continue: “But in this country, unlike actual socialist countries, nobody can be compelled to listen to the president.” To quote Repesentative Barney Frank, what planet are you on? Socialism as a philosophy and political movement, represented by parties such as the Labour Party in Britain, has been responsible for most of the progressive changes in Western political systems in the twentieth century, including universal suffrage. Liberals and conservatives might challenge the effectiveness of socialism to “deliver the goods” when it comes to wealth creation, but “evil history”? Was Léon Blum “evil”? Was Clement Atlee “evil”? Olaf Palme? Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt? Yet they were all socialists. Is universal health care, an achievement mainly of socialist parties in Europe “evil”? No, they were the leaders of peaceful social change through the ballot box towards a fairer, more just society, which they thought best achieved by increased state intervention in the economy (nationalization) and civil society, because the state was, after all, run by the people in a democracy. Current socialist parties in Europe have backed away from this and adopted a “social market” approach, but the socialist heritage is anything but “evil”.
And what “actual socialist countries” do you mean? There are none. Sweden comes close, but even that country never gave up the basic profit incentive of capitalism (and did very well despite its near-socialism). The socialist parties never really attempted a complete socialization of any country. If you mean North Korea, or the Soviet Union and its satellites, or perhaps Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, then I would put it to you that you are making an elementary mistake, confusing socialism with either communism or totalitarian personality cults, and have been reading far too much Hayek for your own intellectual good. Unless, of course, you are no longer the New York Times, but have morphed overnight into the northern edition of the Washington Times?
Next time, do not let someone with a “passing knowledge” of anything write editorials, if you want to preserve your newspaper’s estimable reputation as publishing all that is fit to print. This editorial was not.
Steven Beller, Washington DC
