From American Heritage:
communism n. 1. a system characterized by the absence of social classes and by common ownership of production means. 2. a. The theory of revolutionary struggle toward communism. b. Socialism as exemplified in countries ruled by Communist parties.
With all due respect, I have to disagree with those definitions... let me explain.
1. There is no communist country on earth that has an absense of social classes. If anything, there is a greater disparity between the lifestyles of those in power, and those not in power.
2. a. using the word to define itself is not a useful definition.
b. Socialism and Communism are NOT the same.
What have you observed or heard from Sean Hannity that would give you the impression that he has communistic tendencies or beliefs? I find this puzzling. :?
I believe your hangup is on the word communism itself. If you take a look at the illustration I posted, you'll see that I put communism and fascism together because I don't see any meaningful difference between them. So if I were to say to you that Hannity is close to a fascist, would you still be so puzzled?
I think my illustration sums up exactly why you're unable to relate here. You most likely think of the political spectrum as the linear model where the farther to the extreme ends you go, the more polar opposite you are from the other extreme side. I don't see things that way and that's probably why you're so puzzled by it.
To the contrary, some of the president's policies seem to be in line with communistic ideas, such as taking ownership of GM and some of the financial institutions. Of course, the argument could also be made that some of his tendencies could be construed as fascism, due to merging of government with business, with the exception of a lack of nationalism portrayed by him.
As they say, the devil's in the details, and the details are that the government is not taking permanent ownership stakes in these businesses, and the businesses had every right to refuse. What happened is they were failing and about to go under, and the government offered to buy a stake in the company for far more than it was worth, thus stabilizing the companies temporarily. Then if the companies survive this recession and can get back in the black, they have the option to buy back the stake the government bought.
There is virtually no difference between what they did, and what you do when you buy stocks. So does buying stocks make you a communist leader or a capitalist?
That being said, the use of those stakes as a means of regulating those businesses does make him much more liberal than libertarian. Which is one reason why I placed him where I did on my diagram.