In March 2009, barely two months into his presidency, Barack Obama was so bothered by accusations that his policies smacked of socialism that he called The New York Times to set the record straight. Now, in September 2026, House Democrats have voted in a way that suggests the label no longer carries the same sting — or perhaps that it carries a certain appeal.
On Monday, the House voted 220-192 on a resolution condemning socialism. A vast majority of House Democrats — 192 of them — voted against it. Only eight Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the measure, which laid out the historical evils of socialism.
According to a report from American Thinker, the resolution was a factual recital of socialism’s harms. But the vote margin tells a story that goes beyond the text. It highlights a shift within the Democratic Party since the days when Obama, the party’s standard-bearer, felt compelled to distance himself from the term.
Obama’s 2009 Call to The Times
The contrast is stark. In March 2009, The New York Times reported that Obama called the paper after an Air Force One interview to clarify his answer to a question about whether his domestic policies were socialist. ‘The answer would be no,’ he had said, laughing. But he felt the need to call back and insist: ‘It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question.’
Obama’s protest, as reported at the time, was prompted by conservative critics who pointed to his administration’s large-scale government intervention in markets and expansion of social welfare programs. In his defense, Obama noted that such interventions had begun under his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush. But even if Obama had a point about Bush, conservatives had plenty of ammunition to question his ideological leanings, according to the American Thinker piece.
Obama’s Socialist Ties Go Back Decades
American Thinker’s author, M. Walter, argues that Obama’s denials don’t hold up under scrutiny. The piece points to Obama’s family and early political associations as evidence of a long-standing affinity for leftist ideas. For instance, a 2009 book about Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., describes a man who was ‘brilliant, rebellious,’ and connected to Oginga Odinga, ‘a committed socialist.’
Even more directly, Frank Marshall Davis, a figure Obama described as a father figure, was ‘literally a card-carrying communist,’ Walter writes. And when Obama ran his first political race in 1996 for the Illinois State Senate, he was endorsed by the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). An issue of the Chicago DSA’s newsletter, ‘New Ground,’ from March/April 1996, publicized the endorsement and provided contact information for his campaign.
Walter also notes that Obama’s own words have, at times, sounded less like centrist liberalism and more like a call for collectivism. In 1995, while interviewing for his book ‘Dreams from My Father,’ Obama said: ‘My individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.’ He repeated the theme in a 2005 commencement speech as a U.S. senator: ‘Individual salvation has always depended on collective salvation. Republicans will have to recognize our collective responsibilities.’
And in October 2008, just days before the election, Obama criticized the McCain-Palin ticket for calling his tax policies socialist, saying, ‘You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.’
The Vote: A Clear Signal?
But while Obama’s history may be open to interpretation, the House vote is a clear, on-the-record signal. Votes are where politicians put their names on the line, and 192 Democrats put theirs against a resolution condemning socialism.
Walter doesn’t pull punches: ‘Rhetoric is one thing, but when you have to put your name on a Yea or Nay, it becomes real.’ He also takes aim at the DSA, questioning its altruism and arguing that ‘it’s not generous to want to give away other people’s money.’
The vote could be seen as a reflection of the DSA’s growing influence within the Democratic Party, a trend that has been building for years. But it also raises questions about how the party’s leaders, many of whom, like Obama, once distanced themselves from the socialist label, will navigate this new reality.
One thing is certain: The optics have changed. In 2009, a Democratic president was calling The New York Times to insist he was not a socialist. In 2026, a supermajority of House Democrats voted against a resolution that simply says socialism is bad.
For many, the contrast speaks volumes about the trajectory of the party. The American Thinker piece captures this sentiment with a quote attributed to Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party’s six-time presidential candidate: ‘The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.’
Whether that prediction is coming true is a matter of debate. But the House vote on Monday will likely be cited by both sides of the aisle as evidence in that argument for years to come.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/09/2009-obama-i-m-not-a-socialist-2026-house-democrats-yea-socialism/