Stupid to throw around “Socialist!”?

Today Jill Miller Zimon ranted about “throwing around” the terms “Socialist!” and
“Communist!”
. Her reasoning seemed to be that Bush also advances socialist policies, therefore it’s “stupid” to call a spade a spade.

Since Jill included a definition of “stupid”, I was hoping she’d include a definition for socialism too so we can make a reasoned decision as to whether or not Bush/Obama are socialists.

Socialism
    • Economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all.

      SOURCE: Encarta Encyclopedia

Sounds just like the economic policies coming out of Washington lately.

Is it really “throwing around” a term when it appropriately describes a concept?  It’s clearly not stupid in this case.

I also wonder why Ms. Zimon seems to object to Obama’s clearly socialist policies being labeled as such.

The argument seems to be that since both Democrats and Republicans are advancing socialist agendas, maybe it’s a good idea if they agree to a truce.

If you step back and assess your own attitudes and behavior, only to find them repugnant – isn’t a better course of action reform rather than trying to marginalize uncomfortably accurate terms?

3 Responses to “Stupid to throw around “Socialist!”?”

  1. Jill says:

    Thanks for the link and ideas. Reform is fine – I wasn’t writing about that at all. You were closest though not quite right, here:

    “The argument seems to be that since both Democrats and Republicans are advancing socialist agendas, maybe it’s a good idea if they agree to a truce.”

    Truce about what? I don’t get that.

    The post was exactly what I wrote – the way in which the word has been bandied about makes it a word without meaning as far as using it as a derogatory label – unless the people using it in a derogatory way are enjoying eating their own.

    As for whether or not it’s accurate, I’m happy to leave that to others to figure out.

    Pls. feel free to post your thoughts at the original post on WLST too.

  2. LisaRenee says:

    This whole aspect of the “If Obama is Socialist what does that make Bush” was raised before the election happened, one example where the suggestion was made that since McCain supported the bailout of Wall Street that he was acting in a socialistic manner too.

    Personally I agreed with those who stated that Bush wasn’t running again, and it’s clear that some Republicans were not happy with some of his decisions and while I didn’t agree with the 700 million bailout, I don’t think helping the rich keep their wealth is socialism. I also don’t think that extending unemployment benefits for people that are being hard hit by this economy is socialism. They did actually work at one point in time.

    How socialistic Obama will end up being is going to be a different scenario, there were those who did state that often during the campaign, but considering most of the people he’s selecting and the fact that it’s already being pushed to “lower expectations” of what he’s going to accomplish, I think those who really wanted him to lean more towards socialism are going to be disappointed.

    I found it ironic that those who identify themselves as socialists were not thrilled with Obama as a candidate or his positions.

  3. Jill says:

    Oh no! You scrubbed the comments? Say it ain’t so!

Leave a Reply