1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

There is a socialism rumbling in the media about President Obama. There are those who label him a socialist, and those who find this ridiculous. I will simply point to the facts, all of which you can check for yourself. Consider the following, and make up your own mind. Challenge my observations with your own or admit the facts do not matter.

First, what is a socialist? In laymen’s terms, a socialist finds preferable a system where the community as a whole should control the means of production and distribution of goods and services and the use of property and resources, as opposed to systems where individuals decide such things for their individual situation. A socialist thinks that the entity in control (government) decides best how things should be, and individual decisions waste resources.

But asking if President Obama is a socialist is similar to asking if he is hot, or cold. You cannot say that something is hot or cold without comparing it to something. When we say the temperature outside is hot or cold, we are saying this in comparison to our comfortable, preferred temperature. Socialism is a spot on a continuous scale with anarchy on the one extreme end and Tyrannical Dictatorships on the other. To determine if President Obama could be accurately labeled as a socialist, we would have to reference some position or person to compare him to. There are only two comparisons with any relevance to me. First, how does he stack up to the founding principles of this country. Second, how does he compare to current American society. I can easily point to the ideals this country was founded on, but will leave it up to you to decide where you fit on this scale and use that as the indication of today’s society.

To define the scale, lets look at the ends. At the freedom, far end of the scale is anarchy. You would be able to do anything you could get away with. The faster draw would survive the gunfight, the wealthier person could hire the better body guards, etc., and would rule those under him while he could hold it. There would be no government control of anything. Much of human history tells tales of anarchist times and places. Anarchy controls places like Somalia today. I think we can all agree that this oppresses those who cannot defend their human rights at the hands of those who can oppress them. On the other end of the scale are monarchies and dictatorships. In these systems, a single person decides everything, or at least has the authority to do so. No one owns anything or controls anything except by the permission of the tyrant. Much of human history offers examples of times and places where such tyranny controlled. Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are examples in existence today. I think we can all agree that this oppresses those who cannot defend their human rights at the hands of those who can oppress them. The founders advocated the federal government being as close to anarchy as possible and let the individual states decide for themselves nearly all issues. They believed that such an atmosphere put in the hands of individuals the power to control local government instead of the other way around. Countries like Russia want to be as close to dictatorship as possible and still claim that the total community is in control (ergo communism). This tyranny can exist just slightly right of dictatorship when a group is in total control, called totalitarianism. Russia, Iran and others are totalitarianist countries.

Ask carefully, as the founders did, which end of the scale promotes freedom and which promotes oppression.

So consider the things that President Obama claims are important to him. The most notable recently is healthcare. Does, in your observation, President Obama favor central control of healthcare or does the President favor leaving the decision making in the hands of doctors and patients?

Next, in your observation, does the President favor allowing the customers in the market determine which banks and finance companies succeed or fail, or does he favor the government stepping in and closing some and spending tax money assuring others remain open?

Next, does your observation indicate that the President thinks that government should prevent private manufacturers from failing when demand for their products falls, or that the free market should determine how often weaker producers should be eliminated from the economy?

Next, does the President seem to favor individuals in the labor market negotiating what they can get in benefits from employers based on their skills and employability, or does he favor larger, central labor unions controlling these discussions by tolerating “closed shops” where employment is dependent on union membership?

Next, did the founders write the Constitution so as to limit government or individuals? Does President Obama, who holds himself out as a Constitutional expert, believe that the founders got it right, or missed the mark?

Next, does President Obama advocate government taking from each according to his ability and re-distributing that to each according to his needs when he says, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Or does he mean that individuals should be free to decide where their wealth goes.

Lastly, and more philosophically, can you point to any good or service which is not controlled in some way by federal law, which the President has advocated keeping free from federal law, or any area which he advocates allowing less central control? On the other hand, can you name any areas the President has characterized as out of control or otherwise deserving more government control?

Can you point to any area of your life where you think there is unnecessary federal regulation or where the federal government spends money on things you would not? If so, then you are less socialist than the President.

Do you think that the founding fathers would have tolerated taxing your attempts to feed yourself, much less for the purpose of supporting “the arts?” If not, then the founding fathers were less socialist than our President.

Bill O’Reilly has taken to asking those who advocate calling President Obama a socialist, paraphrasing, “Do you think he wants to take your house? I don’t see anything that indicates he wants to take your house!” He has missed a slight difference between socialists and communists, socialism is about control, communism is about ownership. President Obama advocates use of “the smart grid” whereby the electrical company can change your thermostat in your home, presumably to control energy use. President Obama advocates forcing you to make your house “green” enough to meet federal limits prior to being allowed to sell it. O’Reilly is correct that President Obama does not want to take your house, but it seems obvious to me, that he would gladly control it. This begs the question, “What President was more socialist than President Obama?” I have determined that President Obama is more socialist than our founding principles, more socialist than I am, and more socialist than anyone I have ever talked to. He is the most socialist President we have had. Am I disconnected from current society, or is our President?