Should RNC Chair use the ‘S’ word?
Many Republicans are upset that GOP Chairman Michael Steele seems to have an aversion to calling President Obama and the Democrats “socialists.” I have mixed emotions on the issue — and not because it’s an inaccurate description — but we’ll get to that in a second.
From the Washington Times:
Republican state party leaders are rebelling against new Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele for failing to dub President Obama and the Democrats as “socialists.” And the rebels insist that the label matters.
Even though Mr. Steele has called his Democratic adversaries “collectivists,” at least 16 state leaders say the term lacks the pejorative punch needed to sway public opinion and want all 168 members of the Republican National Committee to debate and vote on it.
It is the first time in memory that a sitting national leader of the Republican Party has faced a public challenge over his ideological leadership by conservative members of his own national committee.
Should Steele refer to Obama and the Democrats as “socialists”? I don’t ask the question in a “would it be impolite” sort of way, either. Who cares about that — it’s a struggle for the future of the country — which is why throwing the “s” word around in our current political and social climate needs to be carefully considered.
If you believe polling data (a recent poll found that 68% of people think that polling data is inaccurate, so take this for what it’s worth), only 53% of Americans think that capitalism is better than socialism. That’s a pretty close tipping-point. In other words, we could be approaching the time when calling Barack Obama a “socialist” becomes nothing more than positive image campaign advertising for… Barack Obama. So there’s that to consider.
Look for those percentages to shift and for some who were tempted to flirt with socialism for the first time to come sprinting to the Republican Party after discovering how much more everything costs when it’s free (to paraphrase P.J. O’Rourke), but the GOP can’t afford to wait that long, and neither can America.
That said, of course Steele should refer to Obama and many Democrats as socialists. There are many conflicts within the GOP as to how to proceed, but I think all Republicans would agree that dishonesty should have no place in the party platform.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Real Cost Of Free « Vets On The Watch
- Micheal Steele is too afraid to call Hussein Obama a socialist? | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Liberals are funny! Outing Valerie Plame bad - Outing CIA interrogators who saved lives is very good « Jim Blazsik
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » RNC members to Steele: When are you going to call Obama a socialist?
- When Real Men Ran the Republican Party « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
- Obama Officially Ends Bipartisanship | NEOAVATARA
- Black official removes graves’ Confederate flags, desecrate graves, and desecrated graves « Goodtimepolitics
- Russian Communist Leader Praises Obama Agenda and Says Jesus was the First Party Member | The Great Illuminator
- The Sham of Socialism: Save America While There’s Still Time « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama, Politicians
Legal Insurrection
» Worst Legislation Since The Great Depression
Gay Patriot
» On the unthinking nature of global warming zealotsAmerican Thinker
» Mary Landrieu Takes Louisianans for a RideBetsys Page
» The sanctimonious hypocrisy of the New York TimesCommentary
» Avoiding Reality, Excusing Our EnemiesBlog Maverick
» Bing trying to get exclusive on Fox…SmartEd Driscoll
» All The News That’s Fit To BuryThe Other McCain
» Ho-hum: Another day, another 'Doug Hoffman, far-right extremist' spin
(sorry if the following question has already been posed above…)
Based upon MM’s statement:
OPEN QUESTION:
Just what, then, would be a “more effective” soundbite-description for such Socialits?
Benito Mussolini said, “The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill”.
…you will work in a gas station…
How about…you will do “voluntary community service” if you expect to attend college?
On April 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:
I think you are giving Chicago Politicians way too much credit to what end – to gin up opposition, the opposition is already ginned up.
No I don’t think the Americorp trained to march in place 250,000 strong dispersed into a country our size and population 300 million, can effectively take over the country. Do I think the Chicago Folks would like everyone to be intimidated- you betcha but I am not going to fall for it. Trying to make themselves look bigger, than they actually are. The American Military is 3 million strong, and now has seasoned veterans thanks to the past 8 years of war, not to mention a population with 2nd amendment rights. The U.S. Military swore to uphold the Constitution and protect it. So no I don’t think these people, who by Janet Napolitano account who appears to be Geography challenged are much more than incompetents. This is Jimmy Carter’s second term.
You are ruling out completely the 2010 elections for Congress. If the Republicans take back the Senate or the House or even just one of them. Obama’s Government gets divided. we have something called Checks and Balances. and another branch of Government Judicial. last I looked the Supreme Court’s head is Chief Justice Roberts.
If you want to buy into what the Rahm and Axelrod are selling. They would like you to believe, go right ahead…they think they can manipulate the opposition. I for one think that their reactionary way of running the country, shows they have no ideas they are just are trying to hold onto Power.
I’m not as concerned with labels as I am with the lack of understanding of basic economics by half the people in this country. I think people will tune out over name calling – we must keep bringing up the facts.
On April 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm, Ragspierre said:
How about…you will do “voluntary community service” if you expect to attend college?
The Army is meeting it’s recruitment quotas, won’t take the dredges anymore when Bubby & Sissy voted Trendy for Obama. Mom and Dad couldn’t afford to send them to college anymore. Some people refuse to listen, they have to experience Socialism for themselves. Socialism Always Fails. So another American Generation gets inoculated.
Herd Mentality got Obama elected. They follow trends until the trend backfires on them.
I think I understand what you are saying, but I believe you are assuming that next year’s crop of Repub pols are going to be different ideologically from the Dems. I don’t. Whether Repub or Dem is elected, I fear we are in for more of the same.
We need CONSERVATIVES in office.
The G.I. Bill is looking really good to those youngsters who voted for Obama in this economy.
On April 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm, MtsEdge said: We need CONSERVATIVES in office.
You and I are in agreement.
I think our House Repubs are far better situated ideologically, and I thank them for taking a united stand against Obama’s recent travesty of a spending bill.
Senate Repubs – most MUST GO!!
Republicans calling Democrats “socialist”? It won’t happen because Republicans know that term also applies to themselves.
On April 23rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm, MtsEdge said
Senate Repubs – most MUST GO!!
This is something Meghan’s Dad is learning right now
Fascism doesn’t.
And, provided “socialism always fails” I am not willing to put my nation to that test…
or to the immense…maybe fatal…costs that are imposed in the meantime.
I am glad. That man fumbled a golden opportunity so badly, thanks to his selfishness and lack of principle, and it is costing all of us dearly. Good riddance.
Just the facts, ma’am. “Socialism” isn’t the curse word it was a generation ago, and since it didn’t do you much good during the election, it’s not likely to turn people off now that he’s in office.
Considering the state of our economy right now, with people losing their jobs and health care along with it, you’re going to have a hard time explaining to people why universal healthcare is such an awful thing. A lot of Americans think we need to reform our health care system in some fashion or other. It’s in everyone’s best interest to debate the merits of our options, not what name you should call the Democrats.
And here’s something for the pro-lifers to chew on: evidence suggests abortions are increasing due to anxiety over health care coverage. Granted, this is just an article based on anecdotes and not a full-fledged study, but would your opinion of universal health care change if it meant people would be more likely to “choose life?” (Bear in mind, our health care system is more likely to change before any abortion laws.)
On April 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm, huggybear said: I think people will tune out over name calling – we must keep bringing up the facts.
Media Saturation is exactly how the message is pounded into the population example ala Hope & Change. That is a Marketing Trick what did Obama’s campaign mean by Hope and Change probably not what a lot of people thought they were voting for. The word Socialism is being used the question is will the RNC use it? Do they need to?
Steele is not the answer to the problems confronting this once great country…he is another country club republican…nothing more nothing less. He has to be shunned again at the coming national Tea Party events. We don’t need another Bush, McCain, Romney…
Skip the S word and go right to the F word of the C word. Wow…those all sound obscene, don’t they? I mean Facist or Communist. What did you think I was saying. Geez. Seriously though, even my conservative husband said that socialism is very attractive to a lot of people. We have an undereducated population who have no clue what socialism is doing to other countries. Once we have socialized healthcare, it will be too late. For example, if you are overweight, you will be turned down for certain surgeries like heart transplant or hip replacement. Likewise if you smoke. I agree those things are lifestyle choices and we all pay for other people’s bad choices. But do we really want the GOVERNMENT telling us we HAVE to lose weight or we HAVE to quit smoking? It is a basic freedom that we will LOSE if we have socialized medicine. There are a lot of obese folks out there who have no idea what they would be in for! As for smokers, we continue to keep cigaretes legal because the government would collapse without all the revenue they generate…and then tell people they have to quit smoking or be ineligible for healthcare. Nice.
Michelle …
I see your point about a possible strong backlash from calling the Obama Democrats “Socialists” …
I think more could be accomplished by guilt through association by always referring to all the policy and proposed programs as “socialist” this and “socialist” that …
For instance … describing te adminstrations “socialist agenda” and proposed “socialist programs” would be be less likely to cause immediate backlash but would still get the point across … say it often enough and it will stick …
Put the thought of “socialism” in people’s minds without provoking a violent emotional reaction …
I think a group of Americans who only get to read about Hitler, Stalin ect… have to experience the pain of socialism before they get the message. It seems each generation can’t learn from the previous, they are bent on re inventing the wheel.
Fascism and Naziism only failed because Germany and Italy bit off more than they could chew, as it were.
If Hitler had waited until Britain had been forced to sue for peace or been invaded, before invading Russia, the outcome of the war may have been different, and Naziism would still exist to this day, in all probability.
I call the Obama Administration, Jimmy Carter’s Lament….
They are providing all kinds of sound bites for the words: America is a Nation of Cowards. America has been Arrogant. It’s patriotic to pay your taxes…now we just need some music scored for it, you get my general idea.
Txvet2,
On the remarks about the diff between Communism and Socialism, of course, you are correct. I was using veeeery general terms about money only.
The best way I’ve seen it described: Socialism is the incremental redistribution of wealth. Communism is the forced, total dependence on the State for one’s every need.
Or, as Churchill once put it: The problem with capitalism is an unequal distribution of success. The problem with Communism is a perfectly equal distribution of misery.
Facism’s original idea was to split the line between Socialism and Nazism. In the post crash world of the Depression, there was very little room for fence sitting. It’s tough for any of us to imagine how desperate most people in America and Europe actually were during this period. They mostly wanted a cause to cling to that would put bread on the table. Facism kept the promise of Communism that all (except of course, the select few) would remain equal but allowed for a certain amount of upward mobility and a large amount of nationalism. If the Commies or Nazis could have given the people hope for advancing their stations in life, they might have been successful. Facism in Italy would have been successful had they not aligned themselves with the loosing side of the war.
The USA has practiced Facist style economic theory since the Income Tax was created in 1919 and the Federal Government realized that it could control the behavior of business via tax cuts. As well, the stock market crash and the Depression era programs of FDR such as FDIC allow the Federal Government almost complete control over corporations in this country. How constitutional is the SEC? At which point does the Constitution allow for the regulation of Companies? It doesn’t. There is no room for Federal intervention or regulation of business in a Capitalist society.
Caveat Emptor. Or, as my British friends put it: “You pays your Money and Takes your chances”. That’s Capitalism. It worked in the USA for 130 years. It could work again.
Absolutely Right.
We won WWII in Europe because Hitler was a very poor tactician, wouldn’t listen to his commanders and screwed with the wrong people.
We won WWII in the Pacific because we sent the Marines.
What you’ve described isn’t government forcing people to quit smoking or lose weight, it’s government requiring people to accept the consequences of their bad decisions. Isn’t personal accountability a conservative principle?
Steele doesn’t simply need to decide which pejorative to use, he needs to EDUCATE. Yes, fools that thought Obama would pay their mortgage and fill their cars would welcome a Socialists, and there is indeed a risk it will become a positive term, IF our own leaders fail to demonstrate it’s destructiveness in every sphere of human existence and endeavor.
This is not a time for rebranding and sound bites and poll-tested pejoratives, it’s a time for education and a call to freedom on a scale our nation has not seen in decades. This is not a time for timidity.
Errah #125 if being fat is a life choice what about homosexuality. should we be taxing that since its a riskier lifestyle then???!!!
I love how you think this isn’t happening now. I love how you think that emminent domain is perfectly acceptable even it’s undemocratic and socialist in its makeup. I love how you think that overtaxation of 5% of the US population (which is a made up statistic that Obummer and his zealots continue to tout) isn’t confiscation or socialist at all. I love how you, and folks like Chaps, think that taxes other than on income, isn’t confiscation even if they equal as much as 40-50% of people’s income.
As 30 pieces said, I will add: go ahead, defend the indefensible. Be in denial.
Yeah, but it’s “required” through undue and burdensome taxation, which ultimately hurts consumers and costs jobs.
If that’s the best way you’ve heard it described, you need a new teacher. It’s exactly backwards, and very poorly put.
Well,
We just have to disagree and hope we never have to find out the hard way.
It’s not that hard to illustrate how much worse people will have it under a healthcare plan that rations treatment to only the young and healthy (only the fittest survive is no way to manage a healthcare system) – after all, it was done successfully in 1994.
You Marxists are a real delight. The consequence for getting old in your book is denial of medical care and a premature death. It’s the result of allowing unelected, faceless bureaucrats to decide who gets medical care and who doesn’t. You propound rationing of health care, and try to clothe it in righteousness by claiming that it is fair payment for bad lifestyle choices. No, it isn’t. The penalty for bad lifestyle choices is to have to pay for the necessary healthcare or do without. No government intervention or enforcement necessary.
*That’s why I call him Michael Steele Wool, very squishy and pliable, just the way the Democrats want him; The name applies, so use it!
*One of my bumper stickers says “No Hope in Socialism” for a reason; Call it what it is and define yourself RNC, or just go away already so conservatives can move on to the Tea Party Nation and get things done.
If ALL Republicans start refering to economically extreme Dems as Socialists AND conservative organizations launch a media campaign explaining why Socialism and Communism are bad, then this strategy could be VERY effective.
Huggybear…any time I hear that phrase, “government requiring people”, I get a bit nervous. Yes, we all need to take responsibility for our decisions. But if someone has a weight problem, it isn’t always that easy to control and in fact, for a lot of people, it is impossible for many reasons. Should that person be DENIED a medical, life-saving procedure because they are overweight? If we have socialized healthcare, the GOVERNMENT will decide your fate based on certain criteria. I don’t want to put my fate in the hands of government. It is not their place!! It gives them too much power over my life. AND, it is a slippery slope all the way down to…euthanasia or being too old to treat for diabetes, etc. Is this what you want?
Great point!
Yes. That is exactly and precisely what they want. It is absolutely necessary in their worldview to reduce the number of elderly, to lessen the strain on the Medicare and Social Security programs. Makes a certain amount of sense, if you’re a soulless monster, which they unfortunately are. And it’s why they seek to control all media. They can’t bear to have people become informed about what they are, and why they have to be defeated.
It isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of definition. And by the way, it’s “Fascist”. “Facist” sounds like some silly Hollywood fop who’s obsessed with appearance.
No,
I disagreed (and still do) with your opinion. I did this based on historical fact. You are right, I misspelled it. Probably didn’t spell that right either. Don’t care. South Georgia Education. Still don’t care.
I agree with a he11 of a lot of what you say. Didn’t realize you were such a blowhard. I tell you what. I will take myself to the woodshed and give myself 20 switches. Not for being wrong – for putting up with your crap.
Communism IS the totalitarian form of Socialism embodied by the State controlling the distribution of EVERYTHING.
Socialism IS the redistribution of wealth in incremental ways via government program.
I was in Communist Russia for a while and saw it.
I currently live in Socialist Europe and live it every day.
They both suck.
Hopefully, we can at least agree on that point.
While I have you on a thread everyone has stopped reading, let me tell you a story:
A University of Georgia man goes to Harvard and tries to find the library. He stops someone and asks, “Sir, Where is the library at?”
The Harvard guy says “Here at Harvard, we do not end our sentences with a preposition.”
The UGA man thinks for a second and says, “OK, where’s the Library at, A$$ Ho1e?”
Think about it.
Temper, temper.
No, Steele should not use the S word. For one thing, Obama is not a socialist, he is a progressive, at least by the political theory definitions. Obama doesn’t just want to control the economy, the Economic Model, which is what the Socialist Democracy model is about, he wants to control the Political and Moral cores, as well.
It’s too late here to have a temper.
You have a good night..
While we’re telling jokes, here’s one you’ve probably heard:
Someone asked a member of a Soviet collective farm to describe the Soviet economic system. “Sure”, he said, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.”
Nice one..
Here I thought this was an article about the RNC chair falling on his Sword…
IMHO, if Steel can’t say the “S” word in reference to Democrats, then he might as well fall on his Sword…
Let me see if I can turn the stampede in a different direction.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html
This is an IMPORTANT article on where we are, and how to get to where we should be.
READ IT…
My belief is that a tax revolt will be the lever that opens this box.
Stop being cowed, fearful dupes, and open your minds to the possibilities of trying what has not been tried.
STARVE THE BEAST
Good grief. Can you please show me where I said this is what I want? I was simply elaborating on happyscrapper’s point.
And while you’re at it, can you also explain to me how “The consequence for getting old … is denial of medical care and a premature death” is any different than “The penalty for bad lifestyle choices is to have to pay for the necessary healthcare or do without?” You are arguing for and against the same point.
Government “forcing people” to quit smoking would mean making cigarettes illegal and smoking tobacco a crime, whereas government (or any health care provider for that matter) denying coverage based on poor personal decisions an example of people being “forced” to take responsibility for their personal decisions. The obvious problem with this approach is is that other than the example of cigarette smoking, it’s rarely that black-and-white.
The way our health care system currently functions is not that much different than the nightmare-ish beaurocratic dystopia you described, only it’s faceless beaurocrats in private companies making these decisions rather than faceless beaurocrats in the federal government. If you are unemployed (or your employer does not provide coverage) and you want to purchase health care insurance for yourself, you can be turned away for pre-existing conditions as trivial as hayfever and there is nothing you can do about it, other than hope you don’t get sick or injure yourself.
The fact is our health care system is broken, and nobody who understands how it operates disagrees with that. There is however plenty of room for disagreement on how to fix it. Welcome to the conversation, now do you have anything constructive to contribute?
I understand how it works…when it was broken…and how to fix it.
I totally disagree with your bullspit.
Care to elaborate what exactly it is you disagree with? Please note that I am not advocating for any specific approach, only for people to come to the table and try and find a way forward that works. Since you know how to fix it, why not offer it up? You could save us all a major headache.
‘K…
document that.
Frontline. It’s an hour long, but it’s very informative if you have the time to spare.
Sorry, I have no time for BS.
Frongline’s or yours.
PBS…??? I was not born yesterday.
And I know a data dump when I see one.
As far as B Hussein O, I used to believe he was a socialist but in all action, observance and practice, he actually seems to be leaning more towards an avowed communist. A thorn by any other name and all that I suppose.
However, no matter how the political leanings may go, as long as the Constitution remains the Supreme Law of the Land, all forms of government that are not Republican in nature violate the Constitution and are thus, illegal attempts. Throw in the recent attacks on citizens despite the Bill of Rights preventing the government from treading on these inalienable rights …
The answer will come. It may not be pretty and it may be costly but there is an answer to all of this. The question now is whether we can do it legally and within the constraints of civility … a quality many “political party-goers” seem to have very little of these days.
Please Michael – be a Man of Steel and tell it like it is – The Obamastration is National Socialist!
When Real Men ran the Republican Party:
Who said that?
Sounds like the agenda of the “progressive” Democratic Party:
Mr.Steele should refer to the socialism, fascism, progressivism,lies, distortions, blatant fraud and hypocracy by the term: “Democrat”.
Socialism IS what Democrats are promoting. When the election comes around, even Americans who get their news from CNN should know what the Dems really stand for.
Our contest, and our multiple electoral battles are against Democrats,
not an -ism.
Now, let’s make sure the GOP doesn’t stand for the same sprint towards Socialism, but at a slower pace.
Just call them the Social Democrat Party.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and craps all over the place like a socialist…..
Gee, didn’t see that one coming.
They lay out an objective analysis of our current health care system by following a handful of success and failure stories. Do you think they made everything up? Fabricated these stories out of whole cloth? Tricked representatives from the insurance industry to say the system needs an overhaul? You may not have been born yesterday, but you certainly behave like someone who was. What are you afraid of?
BTW, still waiting on your solution to our dysfunctional health care system. Do it for America — your country needs you!
Amen, and thank God there’s another person who understands this.
In response to the question; I suppose the answer is that conservatives with a public voice are terrified of being label “McCarthyites”. Afraid of being labelled McCarthyite by whom? Why, by communists, of course.
Cowardice. Insane cowardice.
It’s a word, and it’s the appropriate word.
Communism.
C’mon folks, say it with me … “Kaaah – myooo – nism”. It’s fun. It feels good to say. Say it.
Calling the leftists in this country “Socialists” implies that there’s some leftist out there thinking, “You know, I’d like to redistribute the nation’s wealth; but, I only really want to redistribute half of it.” or.. “but I only want to redistribute 72.6% of it.”
No, they want ALL of it redistributed. Socialism is not a state of being — it is a process. Specifically, it is the process by which a Capitalism is “changed” into a Communism. Sure, there are other definitions of socialism; but the other definitions are actually the equivalent of Communism. If one suggests that Socialism is like a lesser degree of Communism (”Communism lite”, if you will) then you’re already using Marx’s definition. I only ask that people use it properly.
Further, calling the leftists “Socialists” implies that because they haven’t turned the nation into a full-fledged Communism literally overnight, then Communism must not be the goal. It is. Communism is their goal. The process by which they intend to achieve it is called Socialism. It is the means to “progress” toward Communism (hence the term “progressive”)
Levin has opted for the term “Statist”. He did not invent this term. Statism = Communism. It is the same thing. (go ahead, look it up) So why choose a relatively obscure term, when a more familiar and readily understood term (which means the exact same thing) is avialable?
Again, cowardice. Fear of being labelled “McCarthyite” by the left. Seriously? Fear of being called a name? Fear of being called a name by your enemy? Fear of being called “anti-Communist” by a bunch of Communists? Who’s lost their minds here? The Left or the Right?
There is no Socialism — only incomplete Communism. There are no Socialists — only unfinished Communists.
Calling them “Socialists” suggest that they just want a few “social reforms”, or that they only want a little redistribution of wealth. It suggests that they could quit now, and consider their goals achieved and complete.
No. They’re Communists alright. And they aren’t done yet.
In fact, it is precisely the fact that they aren’t done yet, that proves that they’re Communists and not “Socialists”.
Huggy,
The USA has the greatest medical care on earth. We do not have a medical crisis. Period.
The ability of Doctors, Hospitals and Pharmaceutical companies to earn a profit is the reason we have the best medical care on Earth. Take that away and you wind up with mediocrity – do you want a half a$$ed doctor assigned to you by a civil servant who doesn’t care about you and can’t be fired for incompetence? Trust me, I am a Civil Servant. You do not want that. Ever.
Do you want to wait months for surgical procedures – they do in Canada and the UK.
Do you want the same doctor for the rest of your life without the choice to change if you dislike him or her? – I live in the Netherlands and that is the way it is here.
Do you want to be given the most cost effective treatment or the best treatment – that’s just Government SOP.
Do you want medical equipment and drugs produced by the lowest bidder? – again, welcome to Government.
In addition to ALL of this, Drug research companies will no longer have a reason to spend money on R&D. Development probably will not end but it will slow down to a snail’s pace. Companies in India producing the counterfeit drugs you get so cheaply over the internet from Canada will have no new drugs to copy.
We DO, have a problem where the Government has created a payment system based on insurance companies, tort claims and the fraud that is Medicare. This combination inflates the cost and complication of everything related to the medical field. Find me a solution to THAT which doesn’t include the problems I named above and we can talk.