Is Obama a Socialist?

This is a question that has been hoovering around Obama since the start of the campaign. It gained new traction following Senator Obama's remarks to "Joe the Plumber." So is he?

I doubt Obama is a socialist in the traditional Marxist nationalizations context. Granted, President Bush, by effectively nationalizing the banks, insurance and automobile industries has got the ball rolling should President Obama consider further nationalizations.

Rather, Obama strikes me as a "managerial state" type. James Burnham developed the concept, which has become mostly popular in "paleoconservative" circles as a criticism of modern society. (Of course, the positive spin you could place on Obama's beliefs could be that he is a "Galbraitian" and a believer in the idea of a "new class" to guide society.) I am no paleo, but I think the concept holds some validity.

I think an Obama administration will be very interventionist and regulatory, i.e., very "managing" but not instituting direct state ownership or control. Is there a difference? To some extent yes. But I worry that it will stifle innovation and increase our reliance on the state.

Who supports jihad?

Andrew Sullivan notes that a recent study shows that among Arabs, the richer you are, the more likely you are to support jihad.

One could probably spin these numbers lots of ways. But there is much anecdotal evidence that the usual line that "poverty breeds terrorism" is not really true. Bin Laden is [was?] a billionaire and we do not see much terrorism in Sub Saharan Africa.

Sullivan believes the problem is religious ideology. While I have little doubt that is part of the problem, I believe the larger part of the problem is simply the authoritarian nature of those governments. In Western societies, those who are wealthier or better educated are more influential politically. They can give money, host talk shows lobbing soft ball questions toward favored candidates, establish think tanks and run for office. (As an aside, I think that is one of the reasons Hollywood is so far left of the rest of the country -- they have money and glamor but generally are locked out of political influence.)

But if you are a wealthy or educated Saudi you probably find yourself locked out of government. There is no parliament to run for and any think tank will be censored. So you turn to religion and jihadism.

If this sounds far fetched, think back to European history. The Glorious Revolution, while portrayed as a religious and liberal revolution, was in any ways the revolt of the "squirarchy" who felt left out of the governing class by an increasingly authoritarian James II. The French Revolution began as an attempt of the urban middle classes and wealthy to take control of the French government (and it rapidly spun out of control). Even our own revolution was the result of the local elites wanting to control the colonies' destiny, not some far distant parliament.

I know most Americans have given up on democracy as a panacea for the problems of the Middle East (Sullivan seems to), but liberalization of the political structures in the Arab world is needed to stop jihadism. If wealthy and educated Arabs are in parliament or able to have influence in civil society, then maybe they will be less inclined to support bomb throwers.

Libertarians and Public Morals

Despite the old fusionism between conservatives and libertarians, one major point on contention between the two groups is partly how to deal with public morals. Jonah Goldberg raises the issue today on NRO -- namely, how should one deal with Madonna or Pamela Anderson? Goldberg, who is not usually considered a traditional or social conservative, is worried, rightly, about how society looks to people whose actions are not exactly up to norms.

I am a self described Catholic Libertarian. While that seems contradictory, I agree with 90% of what social conservatives worry about.

The difference is how to answer. I am all for ME complaining about Madonna's behavior. I am against the GOVERNMENT doing something about it. My belief is that the decline of civil society and standards is not because of government inaction but rather a result of government action (economic and moral) that takes away individual responsibility. If you ignore celebrities, they eventually will act decent or otherwise go away.

So let's address the decline of public morals and civil society by addressing ourselves first.