Quote:
Originally Posted by retmil46
Not socialist in the traditional sense. Not capitalist in the traditional sense.
One poster in a thread a while back called him a corporatist. That seems to fit him better, given the results of the last 3 years.
He knows money is the power behind politics and government in this country. "Corporatist" in the sense he seems to be forging a "corporation" consisting of the federal government, big business, big unions, and big finance, for the benefit of all four - and no one else.
|
Not that any labels are all that useful--I'd call GW a corporatist, and Obama a socialist--if he could do what he wants. The situation may not allow him to go as far as he would like, but I believe that is where his heart is.