Ron Radosh

Email This to a Friend

October 27th, 2008 1:19 pm

What Did Obama Mean in 2001?

You already know from posts on PJM by Tom Blumer and Roger Kimball about Barack Obama’s 2001 radio interview on WBEZ, a Chicago PBS station. Blumer’s post publishes the entire broadcast comments by Obama on the issue of redistribution of wealth, but those who want to listen to Obama’s actual interview can find it here.

If there is any doubt that Obama at one time believed in an essentially socialist economic agenda, the proof is here. On TNR.com, John B. Judis offered a video defining socialism, and argued intelligently that Obama’s belief in a progressive income tax system is not socialism. I think Judis is correct in his argument; a progressive income tax has long been a staple of our modern mixed economy. But I wonder what Judis would think about Obama’s interview, in which he argues that redistribution of wealth is a legitimate legislative goal necessary to attain “political and economic justice in this society?”

Bill Whittle has a first rate analysis of the meaning of Obama’s words at National Review’s website. They mean, he writes, that Obama does not favor “creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides ‘deserve’ it.” Whittle terms this “garden-variety socialism.” Anyone has a right to espouse such policies, but it now is legitimate to ask Barack Obama whether he once subscribed to that view, whether or not he has abandoned it, or whether he still favors it. One might also inquire from Obama whether he believes, as he implied in the radio show, that it was unfortunate that even the Warren court was not more radical, and that the constraints put in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers might have been wrong.

Given all the above is clear, one must simply look in wonder at the Obama spin machine and how it is dealing with this. The first shot was offered by Andrew Sullivan, who writes on his Atlantic blog that Matt Drudge, who first posted the Obama interview, distorted its meaning by writing the headline: “2001 Obama: Tragedy That ‘Redistribution of Wealth’ Not Pursued by Supreme Court.” According to Sullivan, Obama was only “making a case against using courts to implement broad social goals- which is, last time I checked, the conservative position.” He was therefore only “arguing that the Constitution protects negative liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to formal constitutional rights.” Hence Obama was simply making a conservative case about “the limits of judicial activism.”

Sullivan too offers his readers the full Obama text, to show that he is not taking words out of context. That only makes one question whether Sullivan himself has carefully read what Obama had said. Clearly, at least to this reader- as well as most others who have read it- Obama is bemoaning the fact that the Court has no authority to enact redistributive economic policies. Therefore, it is his hope that they be achieved through “political and community organizing on the ground” that will enable them to “put together the actual coalitions of power” that will then “bring about redistributive change.”

Obama’s words are important because they reveal his actual policy prescriptions, not because he has offered a conservative position on judicial activism. For some time now Sullivan has joined the ranks of those who have been seduced by Obama. But can’t he come up with a better argument than he has in his blog today?

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

11 Comments

1. Jonesy:

Sullivan can go overbaord in his defnse of Obama, but this time I think he has it right. I think Obama was saying that not only is it a waste of time to go the court with these issues, but that its not constitutional either. It seemed to me that he was agreeing with the negative liberties interpetation. What may confuse people is that he’s a politician so the wording didnt seem totally… definitive. I think he did that though so as not to turn off the liberal host or the left that would be listening to that pbs interview.

He could be asked about it though. But I think he will say what he meant is just what I said. In fact, one of his advisors, Cass Sunstein, has released a statement saying as much. You can think Obama believes the supreme court should delcare rights to health care, income, housing, etc… but I think youre being biased to the point of being paranoid if you do.

Oct 27, 2008 - 2:07 pm 2. David Thomson:

I am going to make it real simple: just how important are abortion and the other cultural war issues to you? Let’s stop playing games. It is time for the self deception to cease. Numerous center-left individuals are trying to pretend that Barack Obama is not really dangerous—because he is on their side in the cultural wars raging within the United States. Where do your priorities lie?

Oct 27, 2008 - 2:17 pm 3. JoeSixGunSixPackTheProAmericanPlumber:

Sarah Palin is a Marxist
Alaska: America’s Socialist State

Sarah Palin’s home state of Alaska is the MOST Socialist state in these United States, and she’s proud of it!

Alaska has no income or sales tax!
That’s because it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields.
First the state government takes it’s hefty cut, then it redistributes the wealth, cutting a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state.
Sarah Palin was happy to increase this year’s check by $1200, bringing the per-person total to $3,269, helping her maintain her popularity as Governor.

I wonder how that’s not “buying” votes?

Sarah Palin is proud of her states’ collective wealth-redistribution scheme.
Sarah Palin said,
“We’re set up, unlike other states in the union,
where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources.
So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Right out of the Karl Marx play book!

Oct 27, 2008 - 2:36 pm 4. heather:

a few years ago, I saw a video of Obama at a sit-down session, very informal, about income tax and the rich. He said (I paraphrase) that his father had “enough” money.

The thing is, one’s wages/money, in a capitalist system, is one’s own property. Remember “property rights”?

In Obama’s world, there should be harsh restrictions on ‘property rights.’

Well, I guess the Americans will find out how narrow the restrictions will be. Especially after Obama has appointed a couple of Supreme Court judges.

Oct 27, 2008 - 4:06 pm 5. Purl Gurl:

Only true surprise I find about American presidential elections this year is a vast majority of Obama supporters are adamantly bent on rendering America a pseudo Marxist nation. This call for rendering America a socialist welfare nation by Obama and his supporters, this truly does surprise me.

Quite ironic an American Indian, like me, an American Indian who has every right to “hate” America, is fighting to defend our Spirit of America, fighting to defend our American ideals, fighting to defend our founding principles of Freedom and Democracy.

Appears there is a Free Lunch in life, appears half or more of Americans expect a Free Lunch paid for by hard working successful Americans.

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! Give me all I want for free, I am an American! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! I do not have to work for a living, I am an American!

Gimme my welfare check, Barack!

When I was born, my peoples, we Indians, were not granted American citizenship, were not granted a right to vote. We fought long and hard for citizenship and a right to vote. We won.

Today, Americans are fighting for welfare checks in their mailboxes.

I believe I will pack up my family, head back to our Indian lands, then lead a life of honest hard work, of independence and of pride.

Our family enjoys pride, we will never become welfare recipients; we always have and always will earn our lunch.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

Oct 27, 2008 - 5:41 pm 6. 11B40:

Greetings:

Do despots ever present themselves as “I am the best despot available”? Don’t think so. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Uncle Ho, Pol Pot were all offering social justice via asset redistribution. I often wonder if despots delude themselves first and then their followers/victims or vice versa. Are they able to admit, even to themselves that it is the power they want and need. I think that psychology amply demonstrates that most people don’t know what’s really driving them.

Oct 27, 2008 - 7:04 pm 7. Gaffe Prices:

Hey Joe, if thats your reeel name, This was policy in Alaska. Before Gov. Palin took office. the difference is that the Chicago machine bribes people with taxpayer money.

The corruption in Chicago is probably worse, and not improved since the days of Bugs Moran, Frank Nitty, and alCapone, except that those three bribed with their own money. Stroger, ward heeler of Chicago, used tax revenue as a system of patronage to fill gummit jobs with loyal lackeys, who return the favor by paying back a portion of their salary at the legal donation limit (back) to Stroger,

The good news is that Bugs Moran, Frank Nitty, alCapone, and Stroger will all be voting in the November election.

Democrat party is organized crime with massive P.R. Ubamas is responsible for NO Reform whatsoever, in Chicago, in Springfield Illinois, or U. S. Senate. Name one. Unless by “Reform” you mean, (is code for), more government. And I think that you do.

Go ahead, name one piece of “reform” that does not involve ubamas bagging (taxpayer) money to pay off ward heelers back in Illinois. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Name one.

Oct 27, 2008 - 10:02 pm 8. Gaffe Prices:

P.S.

To: Purl Gurl

Thanks for your testimonial. You have humility and love, and a healthy sense of pride. You are a role model for our communities, and our country’s future as well.

Others (like Joe) have a surplus of sarcasm, bitterness, resentment, vindictiveness, cynicism, and criminal (tax scheme) rackets to offer, and little else, to substitute for a soul. No matter how much government is corrupted by tax revenue and spending, they clamor for more. always more.

Also, The platform of Democrat party includes not just support for abortions, but government funding for all abortions. Media won’t ask him about it. Margaret Sanger would be proud.

“Have pity on those, the hopeless sinner, there ain’t no hiding place from the father of creation.” “Them a’ pirate” -Robert Marley, and Ini Kamosi, respectively

Oct 27, 2008 - 10:52 pm 9. Purl Gurl:

Gaffe Prices embarrasses me, “Thanks for your testimonial. You have humility and love, and a healthy sense of pride. You are a role model for our communities, and our country’s future as well.”

Gaffe! I am no different than others. I am truly a simple Okie girl, a simple person like everyone else.

My medicine animal, Coyote, teaches humility. However, no person needs a medicine animal to learn of the great value of humility.

Role model, well, our family started life on a rural Oklahoma farm. We were very poor. A good work ethic clearly is a must if to escape poverty. We worked our fingers to the bone for decades and today enjoy comfortable wealth. We still work very hard. We firmly believe hard work is the key to success.

Adding to my role model, alone, I am a retired English professor and public school teacher. Presenting a good role model is very important when teaching our American children.

Pride, yes, we are very proud. We are living the American Dream because of our humility, honesty and especially our hard work. People, through hard work, earn pride. You do not need to be wealthy to be proud nor does being poor take away your pride. Personal pride is discovered and earned through simply being a good person, a hard working person. Pride comes from being a good persona and a productive member of our society.

Our hard work and success is not a new story. Our story is an old one and is the story of the many. We are no different than others, we are no better nor any less than other honest hard working people.

Thank you for your kind words. Your words are refreshing in these often hostile blogs.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

Oct 28, 2008 - 6:47 pm 10. Franklynn Peterson:

Ron, Ron (Radosh)

Back when we both espoused a socialist philosophy you never were a very careful reader or listener. Here, if you’d objectively and carefully studied the 2001 WBEZ-FM transcript you’d have seen how carefully the consitutional law lecturer Barack Obama explained “redistributive change.”

Early in the program he refers to the Warren Court being reluctant to saddle local school boards with the costs of implementing court-ordered desegreation policies.

Near the end, in reply to yet another reader question, he explains essentially the same limits with a new set of words.

It’s clear to me that The One was referring not to “redistributive change” of bucks from mythical Joe the Plumber to some lumpen prolitariat. He was expressing quite objectively that the Warren Supreme Court hesitated to order “redistributive change” among or between government organizations such as school boards, counties, cities, states, etc.

I find less socialism in Obama’s 2001 transcript than in the recent “Bailout Bill” passed by decidedly capitalist legislators.

Oct 29, 2008 - 10:19 am 11. DavidN:

Joe SixGun has his political movements confused. Marxists would never distribute wealth like that. Obama’s plan is to tax those who make lots of money, and redistribute the money to various bureaucrats who couldn’t work in the private sector. The public at large will be out in the cold, of course.

Oct 30, 2008 - 10:01 pm