Political Animal
Blog
In far-right circles, it’s practically a verbal tic — policies conservatives consider liberal are immediately and reflexively labeled “socialist.” It doesn’t matter if this is incoherent; it’s simply standard GOP rhetoric.
Republican presidential frontrunner Rick Perry, for example, sat down with Time magazine for this week’s cover story. This exchange, in particular, stood out for me.
TIME: Now that you’ve been in the race for while, do you feel pressure to temper some of your rhetoric, like calling the Obama administration socialist?
PERRY: No, I still believe they are socialist. Their policies prove that almost daily. Look, when all the answers emanate from Washington D.C., one size fits all, whether it’s education policy or whether it’s healthcare policy, that is, on its face, socialism.
I realize that the Texas governor’s intellectual capacities are, shall we say, limited, but his comments here are strikingly dumb.
As a substantive matter, the Obama administration isn’t pushing top-down, one-size-fits-all policies in education or health care — Perry seems to have just made that up — but even if we put that aside, the more significant problem is that the GOP’s presidential frontrunner has no idea what “socialism” is.
It’s frustrating that, in many interviews, politicians are asked what they think, rather than why they think it, but the obvious follow-up is, “Governor, what do you think the word ‘socialism’ means?” When Democrats in Washington start talking about public ownership over the means of production, I’ll gladly concede the point. Until then, this is just idiocy.
“Socialism” is not a synonym for “stuff Republicans don’t like.”
Aside from Obama’s advances on gay rights and reproductive rights, there’s just not much in this White House’s agenda that moderate Republicans wouldn’t have found tolerable a decade or two ago. The Affordable Care Act largely relies on private insurers, rather than socialized medicine. Cap and trade was a Republican idea. Keynesian stimulus has been the basis for U.S. economic policy for both parties for eight decades. Investments in infrastructure and education have traditionally been bipartisan priorities.
So what on earth is Rick Perry talking about? By his reasoning, nearly every liberal democracy on the planet — in East Asia, in Europe, in North America, etc. — are fallen dominoes, overtaken by socialists. Presidential candidates, especially those likely to win, shouldn’t be quite this unintelligent.
Also note the rhetorical transition. Exactly two years ago this week, then-House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) appeared on “Meet the Press,” soon after the RNC condemned Democrats of a “socialist power grab,” which caused a bit of a stir at the time. Host David Gregory asked the future Speaker, “Do you think the President is a socialist?” Boehner replied, “No!” as if the question were somehow foolish. Gregory said, “Okay, because the head of the Republican Party is calling him that.” Boehner added, “Listen, I didn’t call him that, and I’m not going to call him that.”
Two years later, the Republican presidential frontrunner is engaged in a red scare, throwing around ridiculous rhetoric as if it were somehow routine.
Facebook
Twitter
Todd for VT House on September 15, 2011 9:59 AM:
“Socialism” is not a synonym for “stuff Republicans don’t like.”
Um, yeah, colloquially it is!
Live Free or Die on September 15, 2011 10:04 AM:
I'm tired of writing long post, only for the thread to change before anybody has read them so here is from the other thread. I apologize if you read these before:
@Brenna:
"The only thing I can figure is these republicans who were polled hate Obama so much that they're willing to sacrifice their own self-interest."
You win the prize. They vote against their own interest because of hate. Blacks, Gays, Muslims, Illegals-take your pick. There has to always be someone to hate in order to make them feel better about their failures. America was very good to white people for the longest time, giving them every advantage imaginable. Uneducated whites could get jobs highly educated blacks were restricted from getting. Latinos used to be relegated to domestic work or picking the fields. Gays used to be in the closet. Now we have black running the US, we have Latinos running multinationals, and Gays out of the closet running big companies and getting married. This threatens them. This threatened the dominance that they have become use too. Obama elected as President just sent them over the fucking edge. A Muslim Black man (in their view) with a Muslim name running America. How could their lives be any less meaningful.
The fact that 46% of ALL AMERICANS believe that Ponzi scheme line is a testament to the failures of Democratic messaging. By next year 75% will believe the Ponzi scheme statement.
chi res on September 15, 2011 10:05 AM:
I realize that the Texas governor’s intellectual capacities are, shall we say, limited, but his comments here are strikingly dumb.
I hear he's a lot like GW, but without the brains.
fostert on September 15, 2011 10:10 AM:
Oddly enough, one state in the US actually is socialist. It's Alaska. They literally do own the means of production in the oil industry. And of course, it votes Republican. Of of course, their socialist former half-term governor accuses every but her of being a socialist.
Live Free or Die on September 15, 2011 10:10 AM:
I again apologize for the repost:
No. Romney does not. The way the base views a debate and the way the rest of us do is completely different. This is why unless the HPV thing messes him up, he will be the nominee. The GOP created a monster, but now the monster is in control. On the topic below, I would say that usually what happens is that the GOP does something outrageous, the Democratic base complains, there is no coordinated strategy by elected Dems to counter, and the media either ignores what the GOP does or they say "both sides". Then the GOP does the next outrageous thing and the process repeats itself. Meanwhile Democrats are discouraged while Republicans are enthusiastic. It is time to change that dynamic. The elected Democrats need to do something super liberal, or something that is right up to the line. I noticed that Republicans now call the Democratic member of congress the "Democrat Party" (because of polling initiated by Newt), without any pushback from the Democratic party. The media, of course ignored things (in fact they now use "Democrat party" themselves). This is a very small issue, however very emblematic of the problems Democrats create when they do not fight back. How many people on this thread would stand for someone repeatedly, purposely mispronouncing their name out of disrespect. Sometime people get the pronouciation of my name wrong; I immediately correct them. Why cant the Dems fight fire with fire. Why cant some Democratic members in congress in left leanings districts say the Repuke party publicly. Sure it would be stupid and petty, but that is where our politics are fought at this point. When the FOX shitstorm happens, and Democrats are hounded by the media, ask them why they did not complain when the Republicans started the whole Democrat thing for the last 15 years? Ask the media why they use the words Democrat party themselves. Tell them when the Republicans and media are able to call the Democrats by their proper name, then they will return the favor.
T2 on September 15, 2011 10:12 AM:
Perry is not very smart. And calling Obama a socialist is just a GOP buzzword for Liberal/black guy. But one thing interests me in Perry's statement in the full portion of the Time article published so far. Perry says that in the "two years" or so of Obama's presidency, he (Obama) has ruined the economy. This 'understanding' of the economic problems we have is either 1) totally ignorant or 2) purposeful deception for political purposes.
walt on September 15, 2011 10:12 AM:
The "socialism" canard is conventional wisdom now in Dogpatch. People who collect SS, disability, Medicare, and even food stamps know what it is: giving money to black people.
I get into trouble for upsetting the comity of our discourse here because I insist on calling this what it is fundamentally. Not really economic royalism but racism. "Socialism" is perfectly fine if it benefits white people. It's the wrong color that gives the word its special right-wing meaning.
JWK on September 15, 2011 10:15 AM:
You know, it's quite telling that when you describe in practical terms the outcomes of socialism, the public is generally for it -- as long as the label 'socialism' isn't attached.
Both Republicans and Democrats love NASA, generally speaking. It is one of our most successful socialist programs. Republicans LOVE it. It is a sign of prestige, and power that NASA be strong. Funny that.
When you describe the standard of living and government services in Scandinavian countries or Germany, people wonder why America can't emulate their successes. It all seems good until someone slaps a 'socialist' label on it.
We've got to get past this juvenile fear of labels and labeling. It would be a start.
FRP on September 15, 2011 10:18 AM:
Comments likes shots fired in anger are complicated only when and for those who seem to be blissfully unaware ...
Heard of a van that is loaded with weapons , packed up and ready to go
Heard of some grave sites out by the highway , a place where nobody knows
The sound of gunfire , off in the distance , I'm getting used to it now
Lived in a brownstone , lived in the ghetto , I've lived all over this town
This ain't no party , this ain't no disco , this ain`t no fooling around ...
No time for dancing , or lovey dovey , I ain`t got time for that now
Josef K on September 15, 2011 10:20 AM:
Maybe the better question to ask whenever one of the Republican caucus - not just the freakshow of Presidential candidates, but any Republican officeholder - starts throwing out the term socialism is this:
Can you even spell 'socialism'? I'll wager most, if not all, cannot.
What does that have to do with anything? Why, nothing whatsoever, much like everything the aforementioned freakshow has been declaring/promising/etc. for the last several months.
If nothing else, it would be good for a laugh.
Live Free or Die on September 15, 2011 10:28 AM:
@Walt:
"I get into trouble for upsetting the comity of our discourse here because I insist on calling this what it is fundamentally. Not really economic royalism but racism. "Socialism" is perfectly fine if it benefits white people. It's the wrong color that gives the word its special right-wing meaning."
You surely are not in trouble with me. Socialist=black guy or white guy giving thing black people. Nobody can say the N-word anymore, but Socialist/Muslim will do just fine as a synonym. The problem is the media just ask questions and leaves it alone. The MSM is scared of pissing off Republicans regardless of which party hold power. They see the writing on the wall. Once the GOP completes the redistricting, changing electoral rules, and implementing voter id laws, it will be game over. And anybody on the wrong side of the GOP will not be able to make a living. Look at Florida. The Democratic registration is greater than the Republican registration by about 600K. Yet somehow the state GOP own the Florida legislature and the Democrats are powerless. Why is that? That is because the GOP uses whatever power it has to maximize its position and make things advantageous to them, while the Democrats are most interested in fairness and balance.
Mike on September 15, 2011 10:29 AM:
Remember, right now Perry is running for the Republican presidential nomination, not the presidency itself. Therefore, Perry isn't necessarily saying what HE thinks is true, but what Republican Primary voters think is true.
In Republican parlance:
Socialism = BAD
Democrats = BAD
Therefore, Democrats = Socialists
I don't think Perry is dumb at all. He's just pandering for primary votes.
biggerbox on September 15, 2011 10:45 AM:
"Say, Mr. Overton, wasn't that window over there before?"
rrk1 on September 15, 2011 10:56 AM:
It has become pointless to get all puffed up and outraged over GOP tactics. They are masters of propaganda, have the MSM in their pocket, and the so-called Democratic Party has no message or any mechanism to disseminate it even if they had one. Until that dynamic changes, if it does, the reinvigorated John Birch Society that now is the Republican Party will be in charge and will quite likely take over the country next year.
Perry knows how to play to his base of primary voters. It doesn't matter what's true or untrue, or rational or irrational. The dog whistle words like 'socialism' resonate with the faithful, and he'll say or do anything to get and keep their support. Intellectual arguments pointing out how wrong or misguided Perry is are a waste of time. This is a propaganda war not a university debating match. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
Perry will likely be the nominee. The more outrageous he is the better for Obama. Moderate Republicans and independents will be driven away, and may stay home if they can't bring themselves to vote for Obama. Much the same can be said for progressives on Obama's left. Many people may be too nauseated to vote next year, and who could blame them.
kindness on September 15, 2011 11:04 AM:
Steve you are suggesting that Republicans who espouse those views should have any intellectual or logical integrity and consistency. It's obvious they don't. Republicans saying 'socialism' is their dog whistle, their way of screaming 'FIRE' in a crowded theater.
Maybe your point was rhetorical, I don't know. I will agree that more 'media journalists' should make the candidates define the terms they use when they say such things. Sadly, media isn't interested in positions or integrity. Media only cares about the horse race and their Neilson ratings.
majun on September 15, 2011 11:15 AM:
"By his reasoning, nearly every liberal democracy on the planet — in East Asia, in Europe, in North America, etc. — are fallen dominoes, overtaken by socialists. Presidential candidates, especially those likely to win, shouldn’t be quite this unintelligent."
You're overthinking this whole thing here. First, there is no reasoning involved. Like the vast majority of the electorate Perry does not see any value in making fine linguistic distinctions between differing political or economic systems. He obviously means that Obama is a totalitarian, not a socialist, but doesn't make the distinction. Of course he is still wrong, what he wants to accuse Obama of being is an authoritarian, but he would have difficulty in making that accusation since, based on the reasoning of Jeane Kirkpatrick, architect of Reagan's overhyped foreign policy, authoritarian isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Perry, whether by nature (as in lack of intelligence) or design (see, Machiavelli), is appealing to the tendency of the common voter to vote for the candidate with most common sense. That is, voters don't want the confusion that is brought on by a professorial lecture from some intellectual snob like Barack Obama, they want someone who can spout folk wisdom like the guy down on the corner bar stool at the local tavern. And correct terminology is often counterproductive in that instance.
Common sense in this instance, accenting the "common", is usually evidenced by the oft unspoken, "Everybody knows..." that seems to preface every fact free remark made. The problem often being that, contrary to common wisdom, what "everybody knows..." is often based on misperceptions and outright lies, and is therefore false. Perry is the perfect candidate for those who don't really care whether the US is a totalitarian or authoritarian state, just so long as they can control the levers of power as an oligarchy. Those are the people like Richard Mellon Scaife and the Koch brothers, who pump so many hundreds of millions of dollars into right wing think tanks and political action committees. It doesn't matter if he misuses effete intellectual terms like socialism, just so long as he continues to carry across the message; Obama, bad - shill for corporate interests, good.
square1 on September 15, 2011 11:29 AM:
Not to defend Perry, but since when does socialism equal communism? Has Bernie Sanders been agitating for government ownership of the means of production and I just missed it?
Now I wouldn't call President Obama a socialist, but large swaths of the Democratic platform have their roots in socialism. IMHO, Benen only does the GOP a favor by conflating socialist policies with communist policies. Socialists are not "reds". By conflating these terms, Democrats allow the GOP to make a sloppy, but defensible, argument (i.e. That Democrats want socialism) and still get the rhetorical punch of an absurd and indefensible argument (I.e. That Democrats are communists).
Al B Tross on September 15, 2011 11:33 AM:
The phenomenae we are all witnessing, is called the RWA/SDO embrace, the hypnotic state Authoritarian leaders hold over their submissive followers.
As so many here have pointed out, it is not about correct verbage or syntax, it's about pandering to base instincts of fearful followers, "Them bad, me good" is all any Authoritarian Leader needs to say, the next line is, "now go get them" and we find ourselves made into lampshades.
We are not far away from that.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/authoritarian_personality_syndrome_added_as_clinical_disorder_to_the_new_dsm_5_
chi res on September 15, 2011 11:46 AM:
Many people may be too nauseated to vote next year, and who could blame them.
Me. I will.
Johnny Canuck on September 15, 2011 11:59 AM:
"The Affordable Care Act largely relies on private insurers, rather than socialized medicine."
I am dismayed that no one has attacked Benen for this sentence. He does know what socialism means:public ownership of the means of production.
In Canada we have single payer systems in each province. The provinical governments run health insurance, but they don't run/own the doctors. The doctors run there own indvidual practices, seeing patients and getting reimbursed by the govt health insurance- like your medicare.
I think they do have socialized medicine in UK. ie there are doctors who are paid a salary and work for the govt.
There is not a dichotomy between private insurance and socialized medicine; there is private insurance or public insurance before you get anywhere close to falling into the dread socialized medicine (which I hear is working pretty well at the VA)
deejaayss on September 15, 2011 12:14 PM:
Socialism is Workers Owning the Means of Production. The people who work in the factory, own the factory.
The government is not part of the definition.
Sam on September 15, 2011 12:52 PM:
Republicans throw this rhetoric around because the media just nods its head and moves along as if calling the President of the United States of America a socialist who doesn't understand America and may not have been born here is completely normal.
Ray Waldren on September 15, 2011 1:39 PM:
Gee maybe leader Perry is going to accuse the Democrats of torching Congress before asking loyal Americans to vote him President for life -- Sieg ----
g on September 15, 2011 1:57 PM:
don't you get it? For the Republicans, there are no follow ups. They get to say whatever nonsense they want and it stands as a given. That's the "liberal media" for you.
robert on September 15, 2011 2:27 PM:
"I get into trouble for upsetting the comity of our discourse here because I insist on calling this what it is fundamentally. Not really economic royalism but racism. "Socialism" is perfectly fine if it benefits white people. It's the wrong color that gives the word its special right-wing meaning." Walt
Adam Gopnick wrote a very intelligent analysis in last week's New Yorker that among other things connected up the rationale for much of the right's (far right's ?) seemingly inconsistent positions (and it goes something like this): arising from the slavocracy's victory in the Revolutionary War and Constitutional Convention, and its defeat in the Civil War, their fear and hatred of the Federal government is fueled in part by their love of 'liberty' and in part by their belief that any action by the Federal government is a reward, at their expense, to 'free labor' and the slaves that the right fought the Civil War to suppress.
ohhenery on September 15, 2011 4:33 PM:
Well, don't you know about their word...
Well, everybody knows that their word is a turd.
Drew P on September 15, 2011 6:43 PM:
When I ask my Repub friends what "socialism" means to them, they look at me as if I am incredibly dense, and say, "its transferring wealth to people that don't work."
Put another way, socialism means giving our hard-earned tax dollars to welfare queens.
I. Me. Mine.
Let the sick people who played the insurance lottery die.
God bless the GOP.