I don't get the right wing thing against socialism. "Socialism" for a lot of people seems to be a bad word, like "liberalism" or "progressivism" or more recently "hope." It seems like a lot of these "isms" don't add anything to understanding or rational discussion of the multitude of specific issues and problems. To the contrary, use of a term like "socialism" is used as a discussion stopper, something supposedly no reasonable person wants to even touch. Socialism is supposed to be something that "doesn't work" yet if you point out that many western European countries have adopted various solutions to the problems, they are dismissed as "socialist." Or some lame attempt is made to show how these economies are more screwed up than ours.Or something.

Come to think of it, almost all of Europe is now what these right wingers would describe as "socialist." These nations are not perfect and have problems but they work well and are civilized, pluralistic and humane. Hundreds of thousands of US men and women died in WWII to free these nations from the yoke of fascism. The US spent billions on the Marshall Plan and other programs to bring about this result. "Did our American soldiers die for Socialism?" Isn't the answer obvious?

"Didn't know whether to laugh or cry."

Cry. What is perhaps most tragic is that ignorance is a curable condition.

“I support free speech. I crave better, smarter, more honest speech than this which I, personally, consider to be a desecration of the sacrifice made by U.S. troops in World War II.”

I could not agree more, Eric, especially the "desecration" suggestion. My dad was a volunteer Navy fighter pilot who flew 46 combat missions in the Pacific in WW 2, and was awarded a Navy Cross and Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery, as well as other medals. Were he still alive, he'd be outraged by this.

After the Civil War, Republicans "waved the bloody shirt" for a generation as a campaign tactic, and this is cut from that same cloth.

Freeway troll - best to not feed it.

What I want to know is whether or not someone else's American soldiers died for socialism?

It is a hysteria, impervious to analysis on its merits. Usually these are driven by subconscious fears of one stripe or another, likely reflective of something novel and threatening. I would have to say a black president fits that definition. But so does the collapse of the consumer society financed by easy credit.

Looks like the same entity that did the "More Taxes = Less Freedom" billboard at Hennepin and Franklin. If I were a high school civics teacher (not that such a thing exists any more), I would have my students argue both in support of and against these messages. Is that liberal of me?

Well, it certainly does appear that the billboard has achieved at least one of its objectives: it has made the "progressives", alias "liberals", alias "central planners", alias "collectivists", alias "socialists", howl.

I suggest that the above comments (including those by EB) indicate that the writers have not done the strenous intellectual exercise involved in reading "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A.Hayek, (University of Chicago Press, 1944 and 2007) which would make quite clear the thinking behind the sign.

My thanks to the earlier blogger who steered me to it.

Mr. Swift: "Literally"? That word—I do not think it means what you think it means.

But my rhetorical question in response is similar to Mr. Udstrand's: If not our American Soldiers, who else's? I don't care to think too much more deeply about this vapid slogan-based antiintellectual rhetorical question, because it isn't warranted.

When I see this billboard, I think of my dad, who was decorated three times as a combat soldier in Korea. He is one of those life-long Republicans who changed his vote to Democratic after voting for W at least once. I suppose he is now a "socialist" and his service is not longer to be considered "patriotic", especially by the chicken-hawks and armchair generals who strut about with their flag lapel pins these days.

Road to serfdom? Which corporation is your master today?

I would like Mr. Swift to outline the specific parts of the health care bill that he considers socialist. Two or three points will do.

Or did someone on TV or RADIO just tell him what to think.

Mr. Swift, THAT poll is from March 22nd of 2010! In political years that poll died along time ago.

Say Thomas Swift?

Not too swift of you not to have read all the information about the poll. Further questions asked of those polled indicated that 30% of those who did not like "Obamacare" objected to it because it did not go far enough, cover everyone and provide the savings that a universal single payer system would give.
Not too swift of you not to have gone to the dictionary and discovered what the word 'socialism' means(government ownership). 'Obamacare' does not legislate government ownership of medical care providers.
Not too swift of you not to have thought it through that when everyone is covered by medical insurance, when they become ill or hurt, that insurance will pay not the taxpayer who pays now when they go to the emergency room.
Not too swift, Thomas Swift...

This is probably quibbling, but those aren't soldiers in that photo. They are Marines, along with one Navy corpsman.

Hiya Annie!

Say, I swiftly detected a gaping hole in your conclusions. You claim that 30% of Obamacare haters want more Obamacare, not less.

They didn't get the full Monty, or is that Hugo, because the Democrat party parlayed their majority in the House and Senate to deliver a typically incomprehensible, utterly flawed pile of FAIL to the Democrat President.

They *wanted* government ownership of the medical system (I think they were calling it "single payer" or some other nonsense), but were too inept to get the job done.

That, however, does not discount the fact that it's groundwork the Democrat party hoped to build their socialism upon next year.

Pity there won't be enough of them left to bungle it a second time.

Dennis you summed up the bill rather nicely I thought.

Swift: poll poll blah blah -- polls are very important to conservatives when they can use them and unimportant when they can't, which I believe Jon Stewart has made clear.

But to the extremely tiresome and whiny, claim that health care reform was "shoved down your throat": at the time said bill was shoved down said throats -- a meme organized from Roger Aisles and dutifully spread forth by all his eager foot soldiers, even to this day in the Minnpost comment stream-- polls showed that Americans opposed it in general, and supported it in specific. So you are are no doubt advancing the not so shocking claim that people who only know what they see on TV are unhappy with things.

But hey, shoved town your throats? Really? I mean, its like, the only thing Obama ran on. I WILL REFORM HEALTH CARE, he said, and the majority of voters said We Want that guy! That, and the bill was created by hmmmm, let's remember, oh yeah: MITT ROMNEY!!!

If you want to get into unwelcome policies getting shoved down throats, I can tell you -- elections matter. I didn't so much feel like the Iraq war was my preference, for instance, not to mention the politicization of scientific research or the placing of industry goons in nearly every regulatory agency, etc etc etc.

Richard we know what the think about those without health insurance: Don't get sick and if you do, die quickly.

Eric Black's posts I find to be especially thought provoking. I think Eric asks in essence:

"Is the billboard which asks:

`Did our American soldiers die for socialism?'

free speech or propaganda? and if it is `propaganda', is `propaganda' `free speech?'"

I do not think `propaganda' is 'free speech' and any "speech" uttered by a corporation in either money or broadcast form is inherently "propaganda" and should be denied protection under the First Amendment. Corporate speech in advertising, or "commercial speech" used to be presumed untruthful, and a legislature or Congress was justified giving it less than full First Amendment protection. The Supreme Courts over the last 30 years have repudiated these wise precedents and now made "propaganda" equivalent to free speech. Hence the billboard. Ironically, the billboard tacitly promotes the loss of freedom, which is the very thing it seems to oppose.

Man, we actually have people making a slide to socialism argument here. It just proves that hysteria is at the core of the conservative American psyche. The real question is how did a political party espousing hysterical fears gain so much currency on the American political landscape to begin with?

The list of hysteria's is long, Socialism in 1944 according to John, communists in the state department in the 50s, Socialism returned in the 60s with Medicare (according to Ronald Reagan). Then God got kicked out of the schools, and legalized abortion ushered in an era of euthanasia in the late 60s and early 70s. We entered the 80s just as the Panama Canal treaty threatened our way of life and the Soviets were on the verge of building bases in Nicaragua where they would be only 6 hours driving time from Texas. By the time we reach the 90s the whole place had gone to hell in a handbasket with feminazis, political correctness, and the bedrock of our nation (marraige) under siege. Then at the turn of the century we started saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" and now we're complete toast, stick a fork in us we're done.

I don't know what's more bizarre, that these people never tire of being wrong, or that the rest of us never learn.

All I can say is beware of people who want to be afraid, desire perpetual crises, and have limited imaginations when it comes to solving problems but vivid imaginations when it comes to threats and dangers. Follow them at your own peril.

John--
"The sacrifice of individual freedom" is civilization;
"No limits on individual freedom" is anarchy.

Since when did Hayek become the Oracle of Delphi? When I was in college I had a copy of Hayek's Road to Serfdom for a course. I kept it for a long time because it was a perfect example of the fact that just because you read it in a book, it isn't necessarily true.

Facism = Socialism? Are you out of your mind? Read Orwell, please. Orwell was a committed socialist and an anti-fascist. Read Animal Farm. Read Homage to Catalonia.

As to Hayek's off the beaten track Ayn Rand like academic analysis:

Austrian-born free-market economist Friedrich August von Hayek suggested that high taxation would be a "road to serfdom," a threat to freedom itself.*

Friedrich Von Hayek was wrong

On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance. Poverty rates are much lower there, and national income per working-age population is on average higher. Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups, just slightly higher in the Nordic countries. The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group, with larger surpluses as a share of GDP.

Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness.

Source, Scientific American: http://bit.ly/bBeiBa

The scourge of this election cycle is that an entire party has been built on demagoguery, misinformation and deceptive financing. The Tea Party image appearing on that billboard is based on the rediculous assumption Obama is a socialist and that the health care bill is socialism. Very few people even know what is in the bill but they are told by Fox it is socialism and we hate socialism. The billboard is a perfect example of what is going to happen to the political process as cororations overwhelm elections with gobs of cash that are not meant to inform but obfuscate. Those shadow organizations that use corporate cash to invoke fear that drives the uninformed will be controlling the dialogue and the message. This is not because they have a good argument but becasue they have the dough. I defend the right of free speech on billboards but the glaring problem is the Citizen's United decision that allows unlimited corporate political spending. The last remaining shards of our democracy have just been handed over to the corporatists and the irony is that all those Tea Party members will suffer the most.

Hayek? Yeah dude you're pointing to a guy who predicted that liberal democracies were going to transform into socialist totalitarian regimes... in 1944. It's 2010, what part of this are you not getting? This is just another of a long list of bogus hysteria driven right wing predictions. Again, don't you guys ever get tired of being wrong?

In the meantime, civil liberties in the United States have expanded dramatically since 1944, not contracted under the heal of tyranny.

At the very core of this libertarian/conservative ideology is the contra-historical belief that we're living in an era of government oppression. It's simply delusional. More people have more rights and freedoms now in the US than at any time in history. The only people who are trying to restrict those rights are Republicans who believe they can ignore the constitution in the name of national security, and limit the pursuit of happiness to heterosexual couples. Well, having to share privilege with women and people with different skin color and religions doesn't make you a victim of oppression... it makes you an American. At the end of the day we have a lot of people here who just don't believe in Democracy. The whole enterprise of Democracy is to create a nation of shared benefits, liberties, prosperity.

Libertarianism is inherently anti democratic because it denies it's shared virtues and tries to replace them with purely individual acquisitions, as if society doesn't exist.

Keep in mind that Hayek was a socialist economist writing for fellow socialists about his concerns over the limitations of a planned economy.

He had no concerns whatsoever about government -- by laws restricting certain MEANS to undetermined ends -- placing "rules of the game" on the free markets.

However, he believed (and persuasively argued from facts and historical precedents) that planners who attempt to determine WHAT shall be produced and WHO shall produce it find themselves faced with the impossible task of determining these things without adequate information about the desires of every constituent and must necessarily subject ALL affected persons to THEIR priorities, making serfs of all.

His problems with his own socialist beliefs sprang from his experiences under nazi leadership in his country, and forced him to conclude that while government SHOULD be involved in policing the free market system by laws affecting the MEANS it uses, only the free market system can effectively and fairly determine whose wishes for the ends should prevail.

As a good socialist, he was in favor of such things as safety nets like social security in cultures rich enough to afford them.

Obamacare would be anathema to him, however, to the the extent to which it seeks to determine the ENDS to be achieved, and not simply to regulate the MEANS used to get there.

In "socialist" Britain, the new coalition government has taken a chainsaw to public spending. A large number of public agencies are being shut down, and public employees are being let go through attrition and retirement, welfare benefits are being slashed, the navy is being told that it can no longer afford to have aircraft for its aircraft carriers and so forth. The British reaction? Oh well, we enjoyed the good times, some belt-tightening is probably in order.

In "capitalist" America, almost everyone serious agrees that public spending is on an unsustainable trajectory unless entitlements can be cut and or taxes increased or both. The political response: neither the Republicans nor the Democrats dare to propose any serious cuts to entitlements, the military and the Republicans equate tax increases, even for the richest, with treason and blasphemy. The American reaction? We're not quite ready yet for the fiscal austerity that will be needed to right our ship. Hmmm......