In fact, he craves a command economy and his ideology is much more consistant with Mrxism than it is with Constitutional Republicanism.
Those ideals represent the anti-thesis of what this nation was founded upon and was supposed to be about...individual liberty, based on fundamental moral principle, with unalienable rights that are not subject to the whim of a ruler.
Obama wants very badly to shift from governance to rule.
“The idea is that most people have never heard them referred to in such a fashion”
Yeah, but I don’t remember him talking about negative rights in any state of the union address. The audio I remember hearing was from some obscure radio show before his run. Language is used to mislead, and can do so even when it’s technically accurate. Cf. the Martin/Zimmerman debacle and the buzzterm “gated community.” But I’m not of the opinion that the burden is on those calling out the correct usage of jargon. Even if it’s a little misleading to the ignorant, it has to get to the point where it’s clearly become propaganda. It has to have been repeated for a while, at least.
“and his preference for ‘positive rights,’ meaning for the government to have a list of all sorts of things that the govewrnmmnt ‘by right’ must do for us, makes clear what his leanings are.”
I don’t think he wants a list; that’d be limiting. He wants the government to be able to do what it feels it has a right to do, whenever it gets the notion.
“In fact, he craves a command economy and his ideology is much more consistant with Mrxism than it is with Constitutional Republicanism.”
Socialism is bigger than Marxism, and I don’t like pinning Obama down to that particular variety. But yes, that is without the implied violence. Or is the violence implied? I forget how detailed Marx gets.