From Fox News – Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth
A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.
The interview — conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago — delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when “dispossessed peoples” appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.
In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a “redistributive change” in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.
“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical,” Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.
“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.
“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said.
Filed under: Economy, Independent, Moderate, Obama, Politics | Tagged: obama civil rights, obama socialism, obama socialist, redistributive change, wealth redistribution
Yes, us darn American’s with our ideals of Socialism. We should get rid of public schools, public libraries, and we all know we should throw our US mail system under the bus.
FACT: Don’t pay your taxes because every time you do you let the government use you for the evil that is socialism.
Giving money for medical care – socialist
Giving coverage for medical care – socialist
Well who does that leave us to vote for?
Terra – you are beyond uneducated in the tax system and how it works. Please study up on it and then reread what you just posted.
I think you suffer from foot and mouth disease.
I have been studying our government for over 4 years now. While I did simplify the issues, the issues remain…
I do apologize for getting a bit snippy in my post, that wasn’t called for. I got a little disgruntled on the shear amount of posts saying that one or both of our primary candidates are socialist. We have socialism in our system, it is a fact of life. How far we allow it to go is up to us…
Terra, if you are so hard up to help the poor, empty out your bank account and head over to the next street corner in the inner city and start handing your money out. I on the other hand prefer to have the choice on who is going to spend my money.
[...] Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs [...]
[...] “And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said. Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs [...]
[...] “And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said. Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs [...]
[...] Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs [...]
[...] Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs [...]
obama is stupid…GO McCAIN!!!
[...] Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to [...]
Sparky – I was totally going to drop this talk, because we are both a bit closed minded on the subject and that doesn’t make for great conversation, but I have to tell you I practice what I preach, when I can. I take care of my children first, but I donate everything I can.
When I lived in a town with homeless people, I took them food and drink (normally pp&j and tea). I am not by any means rich. I can not even afford health care, I live in an old single wide trailer, I have taken in more dogs than I should have (yes it extends to animals), I buy food for the food drives (no not just donate the food I don’t like out of my cupboards).
My passion is children, and I am attempting to get my BA (only have the associates) so that I can do probation for juveniles in the hope that I can change young minds, and the hope that I can make a difference by being honest with them (about why it is in their best interest to be productive members of society.) I realize on that I will have a hard time, and I will have to look at a small percentage as a win, but never the less I will do everything in my power.
I am not sure why recognizing that our tax system is socialist and always has been makes me less educated or anything else. I am not sure why it is thought that way at all. The government isn’t going to own everything, the court system isn’t going to change so that only the state can sue, and so on. There are so many aspects of socialism, that to be socialist we cannot change just a few things, we would have to change the entire system. True capitalism doesn’t work, true socialism doesn’t work – a system that takes the two works (or so far appears to).
UR statements are of a person who is individualistic, from a free country. Socialism is not. U will be told what job u will have. U work for the party. All your private property is the states. Russians, Chinese, Romanians understand these measures as a means of controlling masses. Ur car is confiscated, ur children r re-educated to party rules and state propaganda. Children r used as informants, on parents, neighbors, etc. Neighbors become paranoid, do not talk to each other for fear of being reported. Socialism does not mix with Republic. Marx/Engels wrote of Socialism, added Darwinism. No state religion is recognized. Expect conformity to state party propaganda. No objections are allowed. Czars today are controllers soft neutral speech is ‘regulators’ to hide true intent from Americans. They will control newspapers, TV, internet, economy, schools, all businesses, healthcare, all gov control and owned by President, who will change laws and constitution so he can rule for a long time. Henry Reid made mention of this recently, he is a socialist. most house and senate is Socialists called neutral speech, “Leftist”. Also ur speech can place u in jail, or labor camp to speak against the party at any time or reported to party member. Socialism is all abt control why? Because as Darwinism reads, “man is an animal and as such must learn submission to the will of the master and made to obey.”
Actually Roshea, that’s called communism, Russian communism to be exact. There’s a difference between socialism and communism you know.
[...] Memorial Library Silent No More! GW Bush Slams Obama’s Socialist Policies – Gateway Pundit Obama: A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs – Purple People Vote Obama’s War for Socialism. Yes, For Socialism – Townhall The US Heathcare [...]
USA is a republic as our founding fathers who wrote the constitution wrote. But democracy and republics can overlap. In Democracy the people rule either thru town meetings or by representatives to make laws, etc. Americans want to rule themselves, to further their own interests, own private property, right to vote. on and on. Socialism/Communism, you do not own private property, you work for the state party. The elite are the politicians, they live in luxury you live in poverty. Ex;Russia, China. You obey and conform, or to labor camps, torture, shot in head. Famine of the masses decreased the population, Human value d/t Darwinism meant u total=0. God was deleted. No practice of religion the party is ur religion ie; darwinism, no choice. Children were the 1st to be indoctrinated thru schools like today in America. Used to be informants against parents, anyone. Sound familiar?
Socialism calls for government and employee ownership of large corporations/industries. It also overlaps with the goals of progressives in many fields. Socialism can come in many many different forms, just as a democracy can. Also, seeing as how this is government ownership, and we’re the ones that elect government officials to power, it would logically follow that a system in which our government owned large businesses would, in fact, be giving the people ownership of the businesses indirectly.
What you have been describing is Socialism in the hands of a dictatorship, wherein one person controls the government, and therefore since the government owns the businesses, he owns the businesses as well.
Socialism is not a form of government as much as a form of economy. We live in a capitalist economy, which is often thought of, correctly or incorrectly, as an economic democracy. However, logically, capitalism has more resemblance to anarchy: a lack of control, fluctuations of power (money), and upon the upper classes oppressing the lower classes, revolution (strikes) begins to break out.
The primary driving idea of socialism is the belief that there should be a large shift in wealth down from the upper class. Though this at first seems unreasonable, it’s important to consider that the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans have more money than the bottom 90%.
If we, as a whole, decided we wanted to have a communist or socialist economy, then by electing representatives/senators/presidents, etc. who would vote for an amendment to the constitution to make it as such, it could be done without changing how the government itself is run at all. Communism is the equal dividing of all wealth among all of the people. Personally, I believe that such a thing is not fair, as there are many people who do honestly deserve more or less wealth. Socialism is virtually the same as capitalism, however there are no business owners. Instead, the employees run the business together with the government.
Thanks to your post I dont seem like an idiot. I had a disagreement with my friend and this proves I was right. Thanks!
I hardly find the debate of socialism vs. capitalism to be anything that can be proven right or wrong completely. This is a debate of opinions, and it’s important to respect that another’s opinions may be different from your own-this is the fundamental idea of independence after all.
Think you have some very good points Lancer. At the time of posting this piece, my frustration was that then-Senator Obama was not being questioned about his prior statements that could be described as ‘pro-socialist.’ I agree with your point that through that in a Democracy if people want a more socialist system that they have every right to vote for it. Also, agree with your prior point that the term ’socialist’ is being misconstrued in many cases. Canada and Europe have socialist systems that I personally wouldn’t want to see in the U.S., but are far from being ‘bad.’
I do think the economies of countries pay a pretty steep price for socialist policies, but certainly respect the desire to create a ‘fairer’ system – even though I question whether that desire is actually achieved.