While I certainly don't think it's unfair to call President Obama a socialist, the truth of the matter is, he isn't one.

So if Obama isn't a socialist, then why is it fair to call him one?

Because "socialism" as devolved into a catch-all phrase for Big Government, and he champions socialistic policy ... wants to "spread the wealth around," commandeered the health care industry, intends to increase the powers of the Federal Reserve, and so on ... You can read a more detailed analysis of this in Jonah Goldberg's "What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama?"

What is Barack Obama then, if not a socialist?

He's the same thing that Bush was before him, Clinton before him, Bush Sr. before him, etc... Barack Obama is a corporatist.

What is a corporatism?

Believe it or not, during the 1930's fascism was in style. It's true! Glenn Beck has done a good job of educating the public about America's flirtations with fascism. Please see his video series: "Communism or Fascism?"

Thomas J. DiLorenzo's "Economic Fascism" is an outstanding paper detailing the influence of fascism on America. As required reading during my final semester of college, I still can't recommend it enough. Every American should take the time to read it. At least twice!

Economic Fascism



Certain British intellectuals were perhaps the most smitten of anyone by fascism. George Bernard Shaw announced in 1927 that his fellow “socialists should be delighted to find at last a socialist [Mussolini] who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do.” ... the American author Ezra Pound declared that Mussolini was “continuing the task of Thomas Jefferson.”


In short, corporatism is a system in which Big Business and Big Government work hand-in-hand. Like the bailouts of the banks and auto industry for example, businesses remains more or less "private" with the government in control.

The result of the corporatist system, is the collusion between government and its preferred businesses, and the socialization of private losses (the "too big to fail" theory).

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) does a great job explaining corporatism in his latest column below.

Socialism vs Corporatism




Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.




Please visit Ron Paul's archives, he's the only guy in Washington with a thorough understanding of economics.

If you'd like to learn more about corporatism, please read: There’s Nothing Free About Corporatism.

  • http://www.thats-right.com Russ

    Ok. I can buy that. Corporatist it is.

  • http://conservativehideout.com/wordpress/ Matt

    Well said CL.

  • http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003S3S4CC Stephanie Herman

    Could not agree more - in my book, 'Obama's Not a Socialist,' I'm trying to get across to a younger audience that capitalism - laissez-faire - by definition, prevents corporatism. If the GOP would stop mislabeling Obama as a socialist and called him what he is - a corporatist - they could gain a large percentage of moderate Democrats in 2012. They don't mind Obama as a socialist - they'd be outraged to understand Obama as a corporatist.

    • Kohouted

      So, then, the Rightie labeling of Obama as "socialist" is to pull the wool over the eyes of their own constituency? Do you Righties really like being lied to that much? The answer must be a resounding "YES."

  • Pingback: Glenn Beck’s False Flag « Ishtarmuz's Blog

  • eep

    George Bernard Shaw is mentioned. I have been wondering about the relationship between Fabian Socialism and Corporatism. I've read that George Orwell was very critical of this group (1984 was supposed to be based on them). If what I read is correct and Fabian Socialism is the "third way" then US Presidents have been a brand of socialist: Corporate Socialism?

  • sal magundi

    "Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses."

    this is of course wrong. nationalization does not equal socialization. state-capitalist forms are not socialist forms. it would be nice to point to socialized forms, but it's hard to as the state, both for itself and as proxy for business interests, doesn't like to cede its power and tends to move in and murder the people attempting it.