The "insanity" of McClain on Socialism

Jack Balkin comments on an interview where John McCain lays down why he considers Obama to be a socialist and attempts to explain his economic views.

To summarize: a key tenet of socialism is redistribution of wealth. However, a 700 billion dollar bailout of banks and Wall Street firms is not socialism. Rather, it is "help[ing] those who need help, who can't help themselves," which is not socialism (because it is not redistributive?). Giving tax credits to people who pay payroll and Social Security taxes under Obama's health care plan is welfare (indeed, why isn't it socialism as well?). However, giving tax credits to individuals under McCain's plan is not welfare (and presumably, is not socialism either).

As far as I can see, according to McCain, "socialism" and "welfare" are thus defined as "redistributive policies that my opponent favors." Redistributive policies that I favor-- like using taxpayer money to buy up old mortgages and subsidize new ones-- are neither socialism or welfare; they are helping people. Where both my opponent and I have supported the same redistributive policies (like the recent bank bailout bill), they are socialism or welfare when he proposes them and not socialism or welfare when I propose them.

The insanity of McCain's remarks comes from two important facts about American government. First we live in a regulatory and welfare state in which one of the most important tools of government is taxation and spending, which are almost of necessity redistributive in character and/or effect. Second, at least since the time of the the New Deal Americans assume and expect that government will engage in redistributive policies to solve social problems and deal with crises. The bank bailout and health care reform policies are only the latest examples of techniques of governance that have become as American as apple pie.

McCain cannot really turn his back on the basic features of American governance in the post New Deal era; at most he can argue about the different ways that government should engage in redistributive taxing and spending policies to promote the public interest. Thus, his use of "socialism" and "welfare" are completely disingenuous, little more than scare tactics designed to obfuscate basic political assumptions about governance that both major political parties share.