CT Blue

The word socialism is being bandied about lately. Some of the Democratic presidential candidates are being asked if they’d describe themselves as socialist, and of course, Republicans sling the word around as an all around dismissal of any and all Democratic proposals. It’s a tactic at least as old as the New Deal. Social Security was socialism, and Saint Ronald got his political start by labeling Medicare as socialism. Once socialisticprograms pass and become popular with the American people, the right drops the label as applied to those programs, because keeping it up risks cleansing the word of all those terrible associations. In fact, there are a few indications that they’ve already gone to the well a bit too often, and a lot of Americans are beginning to say that if, for instance, Medicare for all is socialism, then bring it on.

One of the things I’ve never understood about Democrats confronted with this word, or, for that matter, journalists who bandy it about, is the fact that no one ever bothers to either demand a definition of the term or to offer such a definition. The so called Tea Party threw the term around constantly, but no one ever asked them what they meant by the term. It was just generally understood that it was a bad thing, and if Obama was one (which he’s not) he must be a bad man. The right has gone Humpty Dumpty one better. When they use a word it means exactly what they want it to mean in that moment, nothing more and nothing less.

Were I a Democratic candidate asked if I was a socialist, I’d demand that my interlocutor define the term. Chances are good they’d be unable to do so, or that any definition they provided would be a cartoon version of the real thing. Were I debating a Republican opponent, I’d demand he or she state whether Social Security and/or Medicare are socialist (they are), reminding them as I did about Saint Ronald, et. al.

In typical Democratic fashion, too many of our candidates accept the implied bogeyman definition of the term when queried on the subject. This is part and parcel of the Democratic tendency to adopt Republican terminology, e.g., allowing the right to get away with pro-lifeinstead of any number of terms the Democrats could use that would be far more accurate, e.g., anti-woman.