From the Huffington Post:
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) says he knows firsthand the risky business of refusing to call President Obama a “socialist” from his primary election defeat earlier this summer.
Inglis was quoted reflecting back on his loss by the New York Daily News on Monday.
“I figured out early in the race I was taking a risk by being unwilling to call the President a socialist,” explained the outgoing congressman. “I’d get asked a question and they’d all wait to see if I’d use the word – socialist – they were throwing around. I wouldn’t. Because I don’t think that’s what he is.”
Inglis elaborated, “To call him a socialist is to demean the office and stir up a passion that we need to be calming, rather than constantly stirring up.”
I have no idea if Bob Inglis is correct or not. I don’t know if that is why he lost his bid for re-election in the primary held earlier in the summer. He makes a good point though. What I do know is that the word ‘socialist’ is mighty old and might tiresome. I got tired of hearing Nazi and Hitler also. I think I will add ‘socialist‘ to the ‘down the rabbit hole’ list of words that will get one thrown in to moderation so we can take a break.
It is just time to find another word. Not everything you don’t like is socialist. That is too 50’s for me. Recycled politics. Next thing we know we will slide into saying ‘communist.’ Then we will have to drag out McCarthy. At least on this blog, please find another word. It really is getting old, boring, and recycled.
Furthermore, calling someone a socialist is simply libelous and defamatory unless the individual has identified themselves as such. Spreading rumors and lies and printing unsubstantiated material without identifying it as such is much the same. Regardless of what is done on other blogs, it isn’t going to be done here.
Can we also throw the indiscriminate, knee-jerk use of the word “racist” down the rabbit hole, too, when it is used to describe any and all criticism of the current president? Except I don’t think that would work to (fill in blank–Reid, Pelosi, Obama)’s advantage.
I believe I have addressed racist, Nazi, and Hitler here. I rarely use racist. It is over-used also. To my knowledge, those 3 aren’t posting here.
That is not to say there aren’t socialists and racists. However, they are thrown about way too freely and used lazily.
Agreed. Those words used to have some punch to them and were used as conversation stoppers. It’s just not working anymore for people who want honest, meaningful discussion.
Being a communist could get you in very serious hot water when I was growing up. I know that the anti-vietnam protestors were called communists…well..actually commie bastards. But they weren’t necessarily.
You are absolutely correct! The term socialist has been bandied about so frequently that it has become virtually meaningless. Henceforth, I shall use the term ‘marxist.’
Hey, I love all those words! And I am all for Pinkos, too. At least don’t ban THAT one, okay 🙂
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/10/ron-paul-barack-obama-is-not-a-socialist/
NEW ORLEANS–Republicans and tea party activists are fond of accusing President Barack Obama of being a socialist, but today party gadfly Ron Paul said they had it wrong.
“In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
“He’s a corporatist,” Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”
Supporters of the Texas lawmaker appear to represent a significant number of the 3,500 attendees here, fueling speculation that Paul is likely to win the straw poll later today. The Campaign for Liberty, Paul’s political outfit, declined to discuss how many of his supporters were at SRLC.
The Texan’s supporters often descend on political gatherings to vote for him in 2012 straw polls. In February, he won the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll with a hefty 31% of the vote.
Here is a list (at the end of the page) of Congressional Members of the DSA:
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm
You must let these folks know they shouldn’t refer to themselves as “S-Words” anymore.
@marinm
Ron Paul is, as always, correct. There is also (if one looks closely at Obama’s positions on corporate takeovers by government) a very smart case to be made that he’s actually a Facist.
Paul is actually the man with the answers. Problem is, the Republican party is so beholden to the Military Industrial complex, that they attack him mercilessly for questioning why we’re tangled up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are not two wars our founders would have wanted us involved in.
Slow, 100% agree. If the -R’s had the courage to put Paul up front I’d vote for him and give up personal time to work for the campaign. If the establishment moves forward with Romney I may have to sit home.
@marinm
I tell my friends and family….”Things may look good for 2012, but never underestimate the Republicans’ ability to screw this up, big time.” I’m kind of at the point of not using D and R to describe anything anymore because I think both parties are equally to blame. There are decent folks in the political game and there are rats. Most of ’em? Rats. I think the most sure way to get four more years of Obama is to put Romney up there.
I’m not sure I ever understood the whole “spread Democracy” concept. Years and years ago, I just went along with it, but the older I get, and the more I see, I can’t help but ask “Why?” Why are we trying to spread Democracy instead of making sure ours is safe? I think on it, but answers don’t come easy to that question. And so what if that overturns some 20-30-50 or more years of foreign policy? I don’t know?!!
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
I doubt very seriously that they did refer to themselves as members of any socialist party. I believe you just feel for a big one. But that’s typical of the source where this was published–the politics of mass destruction. (aka who cares if the information is accurate! It sells)
@SLOWPOKE
Supposedly, if countries are democracies, they aren’t communist. If they aren’t communist then they won’t be your enemy. That was always the thought, at least in my simplistic mind, when growing up. That concept was sustained during Vietnam…the whole defending the spread of Democracy idea.
I have no idea now why we try to spread democracy. I guess because that’s what Americans do. I think maybe Israel is the best example of why we care if it spreads.
I’m far from a neocon as I do believe we need a strong national defense but don’t ‘want’ or seek war. I think the US has every right to defend itself using as much force as needed in order to crush our enemies but we need to be smart about how we use that power.
Agreed that 2012 it’s the -R race to lose.
I feel we need a strong national defense also. Unfortunately, what constitutes ‘a strong national defense’ seems to be the bugaboo here. Different factions have different notions of what makes us strong.
I agree we need to be smart about that power.
Does it save us money to have more democracies out there? Are we safer? Or does the enemy simply change? Germany and Japan are our allies today. Unfortunately, North Korea and Iran aren’t. I know no answers.
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
It is hard to argue with your desire to conclude these long wars. However, the reasons and objectives for a war should be discussed BEFORE initiating hostilities. The cost in blood and treasure is always larger than imagined. Ron Paul did not object to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, although his objection to Iraq is well known and principled.
Nevertheless, his argument did not prevail. Now that we are in these wars, I believe that we do whatever it takes to achieve our objectives (i.e. win). Our failure in these wars can only lead to bloodier challenges in the future.
It is tempting to make a devil’s deal: if we leave a tyrant (i.e. Islamists) to dominate his sphere of influence, then perhaps he will leave us alone. But it never works out that way. It was that same line of reasoning that persuaded four U.S. presidents (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison) to pay tribute to leaders in the Middle East to keep them from kidnapping sailors, stealing ships, etc. Despite the tribute, we eventually had to fight the Barbary Wars against the Islamic pirates.
How on earth do you ever attempt to quell all the Islamist extremists?
So what can I call President Obama’s policies? I know! Progressi…wait…can’t.. Progressive policies are socialist policies…..Fasc…nope. Socialist also. Not a nazi. Not a communist. Oh well. A rose by any other name is STILL a rose.
So I’ll just call him a evil bas…nope. Too impolite. He’s not a typical liberal. The only words that work for what he does is…incompetent. Either that or he’s following Cloward and Piven and bringing down the economy on purpose to drive people towards a desired end.
Why is the word socialist a “bad” word? It IS NOT demeaning when you describe someone. It only describes a political philosophy. Bernie Sanders is proud to be one.
If the shoe fits, he should wear it.
Why can’t you describe what he is doing that you don’t like rather than affixing a name to him? I don’t consider progressives to be socialists. We have evolved politically since the early part of the 20th century. Or put another way, Glenn Beck doesn’t do my political definitions for me.
Let’s face it, you probably wouldn’t like any Democrat who is in the White House. Is there a Democrat you would like or not be calling a socialist? That seems to be the current insult du jour to hurl at Democrats.
@Moon-howler
I would view that as an unachievable objective. A more realistic objective would be to set up military capabilities for the locals to defend themselves e.g. Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Do you think the locals even want to defend themselves? I don’t get the idea that they do.
I’m not “affixing” a name to Obama’s policies. They are what they are. YOU may have evolved politically, but Obama is stuck in the early 20th century. I don’t get my definitions from Beck. My definition of Progressives comes from history.
I would not mind a conservative Democrat. Zell Miller was good. I don’t consider all Democrats to be socialist. Jimmy Carter was not socialist. Bill Clinton was not socialist. Hillary Clinton is socialist. That said, Democrat policies, especially in the House, more closely align to socialism than to free enterprise.
The Democrats, since Reagan, have moved left. Heck, even the GOP has moved leftwards. That’s why the Tea Party holds most of its anger for the GOP. I don’t use the term as an insult. I have much better insults than that. I use it to describe policy that is being passed in Congress.
As an aside, I’ve just hunted through the “intarwebz” to find more information and definitions. None of the sites that I used previously now discuss the philosophy of progressivism. They all talk of what they advocate, the reason it started, etc. Very whitewashed. No quotes describing their thoughts, no political statements, etc. Very interesting. Wiki has completely changed their site.
I have always thought that modern day progressives were left of centrists…..
Neo-cons aren’t what I thought they were either. The entire world has been redefined fairly recently. I found out I am probably a socialist as well as an…overly priviledged white princess.
When the label “liberal” became so banal that you thought you’d barf if you heard it thrown out as an epithet one more time, along came the right-wing’s new terms du jour – “progressive” and “socialist”. Doesn’t sound too sinister to me – we believe in progress in our technology. Why not our politics? Better than reactionary, IMO.
Someone fire off the “our health care or booze is now socialized and that’s bad” argument. Go make the same argument about our socialized outsourcing of defense contracts or the contracts for services that used to be supplied by GIs (meals, body guards, etc.) but are now supplied by private industry at a higher price. Maybe then, I’ll take your arguments about socialism seriously.
How about those mercenary soldiers who have been in Iraq since we are mentioning defense contracts. Those people make a fortune compared to regular soldiers. Most were trained by our army, that socialized defense organization.
How is outsourcing to private enterprise “socialist?”
However, I do believe that more of the support missions should be returned “in house.” The military is the most socialist component of the government. Government run, no one owns anything, etc….. The body guards were hired by the State Department. They did not want to have to deal with the military hierarchy. They wanted to be in charge, so they hired Blackwater, who did an excellent job of protecting State assets. None of the mercenaries (actually, technically, they’re not) get the benefits that the military does. They are private contractors, which brings its own problems. They are giving up a support base and benefits for cash.
I’m now going to substitute “progressive” for “socialist” when referring to Obama. I mean, its HIS quote:
President Obama told a Hollywood fundraiser Monday night that he and congressional Democrats have passed the most progressive legislation in decades.
“We have been able to deliver the most progressive legislative agenda — one that helps working families — not just in one generation, maybe two, maybe three,” Obama said.”
“This is exactly when you want to be president,” Obama said. “This is why I ran, because we have the opportunity to shape history for the better.”
So, destroying the economy is progressive…..ok, then. Well, its not like the conservatives didn’t warn everyone to take Obama at his word……fundamental transformation. We got that alright.
Cargo, do you really feel Obama destroyed the economy? Where have you been?
The economy tanked in Sept. 2008. Obama had not been elected. When you all say things like that, it doesn’t even make sense. I won’t say George Bush tanked it either. many things came into play that had been building towards the perfect storm for the longest time.
Obama did not destroy the economy. Neither he nor John McCain could have snapped their fingers in Jan. 2009 and brought it back. These things take time. I am surprised it is in as good of shape as it is actually.
I believe that Democratic policies that Clinton signed started the ball rolling, along with Democratic resistance to reforms. Then, when Congress became controlled by the Democrats, their policies became more and more anti-business. And then when Obama was elected, his RESPONSE to the downturn worsened it. If the “stimulus” had actually gone to business or even real infrastructure jobs, it MIGHT have helped. But it was designed to be a Democrat slush fund. His continuing demonization of business and “rich” people, along with Congress’s asinine laws that have frightened business into not hiring anyone, has just deepened the recession. Add to that, his insistence on killing the drilling business, pushing cap and trade, raising taxes, etc, Obama has ruined the economy and is not doing a damn thing to fix it.
He is either doing it on purpose so as to make more people dependent on government, add power to his cronies, or he and his people are completely incompetent.