Is socialism’s “social policy” simply an attempt to compensate for poor economics?
Socialism was primarily, of course, a system of economics. Marx and other Marxians wanted first and foremost to eliminate the capitalists, the exploitation of labor, and the property rights of the capitalist system. But, while working on economic issues, socialists were never unwilling to eliminate all the old, “reactionary” institutions of society. Thus Marxists made various attacks on marriage, cultural mores, education, youth programs, and other long-standing traditions that were more social than economic. Therefore, when economic programs have failed to prove effective, agreeable, or even viable, socialists have turned with even greater purpose to these other, more purely political pursuits.
President Obama and environmental policy
President Obama’s greatest preoccupations seemed to lie in the realm of environmental policy. He was perfectly willing to watch the spread of unemployment that accompanied his anti-employment environmental efforts. It is fortunate for the United States that his preoccupation with environmental issues – his complete buy-in to an Al Gore or Michael More politicization of global warming – kept him from devoting his full presidential energy to economic change and the “complete transformation” of the American system. Golf may also have been of assistance to his being diverted from economic strategy, since online photos demonstrate he spent inordinate amounts of time pursuing the sport.
Of course he should receive kudos for his efforts to persuade China and India that they should make contributions toward any worldwide effort to stem global warming. If the leading developing countries do not make efforts to curb the growth of carbon, anything the U.S. does will be far too little. If China, India and Russia ignore climate change, any extant problems can only become more urgent regardless of U.S. policies.
As a result of that fact, the reasonable approach to whatever man-made global warming there is would not be to behave as though the U.S. could solve any climate problem singlehandedly. It would make more sense for the U.S. simply to accommodate to climate change while undertaking gradualist initiatives promising greater benefits than costs. To let hundreds of thousands, or even millions of workers subsist in unemployment in an attempt to reduce global warming by half a degree Fahrenheit seems far from prudent policy.
What seems a little strange about climate change ideology is that it appears more concerned about the home of the human race, the globe, than it does with the humans involved. Whether or not the climate is warming, pollution is rarely conducive to good health. It is a worthwhile goal for humans to strive to achieve a clean environment in any case.
But again, the costs and benefits associated with any given environmental problem and of its prospective solutions would seem to be worthy of our consideration. It seems surprising to me that the president alleged to be so brilliant surrounded himself with numerous Marxist “czars” and advisors like Larry Summers. Those expert advisers appeared never to have introduced President Obama to the most casual form of cost/benefit analysis. He never seems to have asked himself the question, “how much unemployment is justified by a policy promising (probably without certainty) a 1̊ Fahrenheit reduction achieved over a ten year period?”
Political Action (Corruption or Abuse of Power) as Opposed to Political Policy.
Using the power of the IRS and other government agencies to attack individuals and organizations perceived to be President Obama’s political enemies was not, of course, social policy. But using the power of his office as a political weapon was apparently a commonplace in his presidency.