Does it hurt the GOP when they call Obama a socialist?

[Anarchist420]

The easiest way they could win back the White House is to put up a capitalist candidate who exposes Obama's corporatism, but it's not going to happen.

In fact, I can imagine the majority of Republicans in 2012 screaming that Obama's a socialist, which is patently false and will cost them the election.

 

[soundforbjt]

Their base love buzzwords. Easier to remember then facts.

 

[Ldir]

It makes them sound dishonest. If the shoe fits ......

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Neither the Dems nor the Reps are worth having. Unfortunately like terminal cancer it's nothing you can get rid of.

I imagine it as a brain tumor trying to sell it's advantages over pancreatic cancer. It really doesn't matter what's said.

 

[shrumpage]

Yes, it does hurt them.

The word doesn't carry the negative connotations it used. USSR is no longer, and European nations while being 'socialist' aren't cesspits, and do quite well.

Labeling Obama a socialist doesn't do anything for the republicans except elicit cheers from their base - but that doesn't help further their cause.

 

[Genx87]

They should label him "big govt". I think that would sway people more than a dead and failed ideology.

 

[her209]

They should label him "big govt". I think that would sway people more than a dead and failed ideology.

But they can't since they're also "big government".

 

[ShawnD1]

Their base love buzzwords. Easier to remember then facts.

Socialist is an effective term in the US because Americans think they are a lot richer than they really are. In surveys about how strong Americans think the middle class is, the estimates are always way off. People think their income class controls a huge portion of the wealth and that socialism will take it away and give it to poor people. In reality, those people are the poor people that socialism hands money to. Labeling people as socialists doesn't work in most other countries.

Corporatist is a horrible term to use because it's too vague and poorly understood. Does anyone know what that actually means? I'm reading the wikipedia definition and it's all nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles among individuals.[1][2] The term corporatism is based on the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body".[2] Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body.[3]

what the hell does that mean?!?

 

[her209]

Corporatist is a horrible term to use because it's too vague and poorly understood. Does anyone know what that actually means? I'm reading the wikipedia definition and it's all nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

what the hell does that mean?!?

That's terrible. They should just call them societist!

 

[Steeplerot]

Not only does it make them look very ignorant as far as grasping basic political ideologies but it does great disservice to the horrors of the real USSR which was nothing like Obama, Bush, or any other US president.

Not only that but labeling Socialist as Stalinists makes Americans look dumb as hell to the rest of the moderate world who have mixed market systems and enough of their education systems left to have taught their people the differences. Some basic civics courses from middle school would do Repubicans a lot of good nowadays.

 

[soundforbjt]

Socialist is an effective term in the US because Americans think they are a lot richer than they really are. In surveys about how strong Americans think the middle class is, the estimates are always way off. People think their income class controls a huge portion of the wealth and that socialism will take it away and give it to poor people. In reality, those people are the poor people that socialism hands money to. Labeling people as socialists doesn't work in most other countries.

Corporatist is a horrible term to use because it's too vague and poorly understood. Does anyone know what that actually means? I'm reading the wikipedia definition and it's all nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

what the hell does that mean?!?

The Borg!!

 

[ShawnD1]

Not only that but labeling Socialist as Stalinists makes Americans look dumb as hell to the rest of the moderate world who have mixed market systems and enough of their education systems left to have taught their people the differences.

If this forum has taught me anything, it's that Americans take the same classes as everyone else in the world, but you are not required to pass the class before moving on to the next level. For example, if you are in Germany and you say WW1 was about battling communism, you fail the class and repeat it until you pass. In the US, just put your name at the top of the paper and you'll pass with whatever the lowest passing grade is. F+ or something

 

[Steeplerot]

.

Corporatist is a horrible term to use because it's too vague and poorly understood. Does anyone know what that actually means? I'm reading the wikipedia definition and it's all nonsense.


what the hell does that mean?!?

That page is a ongoing fight with libertarian propagandists for ages. Don't expect much as it is the achilles heel of libertarianism and they know it.

 

[Steeplerot]

For example, if you are in Germany and you say WW1 was about battling communism, you fail the class

A lot of people don't have a clue about WW1 really. The whole situation was a clusterfuck that does not fit into neat sentences like "Germany Invaded Poland" like WW2 is for textbooks.

The Second Franco-Prussian World War would be more fitting for WW1 really. WW2 could be 3.

 

[Genx87]

But they can't since they're also "big government".

Since when have politicians not labeled other politicians what they are themselves?

 

[ShawnD1]

The lack of comprehension whether out of ignorance or willingness somehow is not surprising.

here's half day down the page

neo-corporatism
In the post-World War II reconstruction period in Europe, corporatism was favored by Christian democrats, national conservatives, and social democrats in opposition to liberal capitalism.[28] This type of corporatism faded but revived again in the 1960s and 1970s as "neo-corporatism" in response to the new economic threat of stagflation.[28] Neo-corporatism favored economic tripartism which involved strong and centralized labor unions, employers' unions, and governments that cooperated as "social partners" to negotiate and manage a national economy.[28]

Attempts in the United States to create neo-corporatist capital-labor arrangements were unsuccessfully pushed for by Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis in the 1980s.[46] Robert Reich as U.S. Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration promoted neo-corporatist reforms.[46]

So labor unions = corporatism

It said this was to fight against "liberal capitalism". Liberal capitalism would be the opposite of that - capitalism WITHOUT unions or government rules.

shawnd1 = corporatist who supports OSHA, minimum wage, government-mandated overtime pay, and government-mandated paternity and vacation time :thumbsup:

 

[Steeplerot]

My bad, I edited that a bit ago as I was still reading older posts Shawn.

 

[MovingTarget]

Short-term? No. Long-term, the overuse of the word socialism without regard to what it actually means could have the opposite effect. As the middle class continues to circle the drain due to the prevailing economic policies since Reagan, people will look on those 'evil socialists' as a more viable alternative.

 

[Steeplerot]

people will look on those 'evil socialists' as a more viable alternative.

The establishment in this country has done its damnedest to skew what Socialism even is. Good luck asking Americans to read and look into the finer details of history through the corporate propaganda machine, they have fine tuned red baiting the US public since the late 1800s I sure as hell don't see them changing their tune anytime as the very same media companies get bigger and greedier every decade and even join with industry itself.

 

[JD50]

They should label him "big govt". I think that would sway people more than a dead and failed ideology.

Agreed.

But they can't since they're also "big government".

Like Genx said, when has that ever stopped a politician?

 

[bamacre]

Their base love buzzwords. Easier to remember then facts.

Yeah, like birthers and teabaggers. Oh wait, that's the left.



To answer the OP, I think so. But how can the GOP leadership call the Democrats what they really are, crony capitalists, when doing so would only be highly hypocritical.

 

[soundforbjt]

Yeah, like birthers and teabaggers. Oh wait, that's the left.



To answer the OP, I think so. But how can the GOP leadership call the Democrats what they really are, crony capitalists, when doing so would only be highly hypocritical.

Never said the left's base didn't like buzzwords also...

 

[bamacre]

Never said the left's base didn't like buzzwords also...

True, didn't mean to imply you did.

 

[matt0611]

Obama is not a true socialist, as in public ownership of the means of production.
No one except Hugo Chavez is that kind of socialist anymore.
He's the new type of socialist, the big government, redistribution of wealth, more government control and power over the economy, type of socialist.

 

[umbrella39]

He is an idiot who is not worthy of trust but not a socialist by far. He is closer to Bush than he is Marx.