I have no idea what dictionary Johnathan Lott is using to look up words, but his attempts to read "socialist" policies into Obama's inauguration speech were comical.
For one thing, my dictionary defines "socialism" as a theory that calls for "the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society of the community rather than by private individuals."
Absolutely nothing Obama said could reasonably be construed as advocating such a system.
Furthermore, all of Lott's interpretations of Obama's claims were incredible distortions of the content of Obama's statements.
For instance, Lott quotes Obama as saying "the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." Lott then says this "basically" implies that "the free market failed some people, so we need to more equitably redistribute its spoils."
How Obama's practically platitudinous claim "implies" (or "basically implies," whatever that means) Lott's reading is, to put it very gently, unclear.
We cannot make words mean anything we like - a point that needs to be taken very seriously when it comes to matters of national importance.
My advice to Johnathan Lott would be to invest in a new dictionary before his next column is due next week. The one he has now is clearly no good.
