4 ms·

The weirdest part is not that Republicans think universal healthcare is socialism; it's that they think that it is, while also thinking that Medicare is not! R

The weirdest part is not that Republicans think universal healthcare is socialism; it's that they think that it is, while also thinking that Medicare is not! Remember "keep the government out of my Medicare"?

throw0101a 7y ago
> [...] that Republicans think universal healthcare is socialism. Do the Rs really think that, or do they simply say "socialism!" because they've trained their base and some independents to think (socialism = bad)? Centrailly planned economies generally don't work, and I wouldn't want actual socialism for most things where I live. But if you don't like a particular policy, argue the pros/cons of that policy instead of trying to 'slander' it. A lot of people in the US want affordable health care, and there are various ways to implement that, but if you label them all as "socialism", then people will end up "wanting" socialism.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  This stems mostly, I think, from a confusion about the difference between social democracy and socialism. And, to be fair, plenty of people on the left make the same mistake. I see lots of red roses appended to Twitter usernames. I think most of those people want socialized medicine and safety nets, not socialized control of the means of production. Yet they call themselves socialists.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > This stems mostly, I think, from a confusion about the difference between social democracy and socialism. Sure. And my argument/thesis is that this confusion is a deliberate tactic by Right-leaning politicians. McConnell called granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, “full bore socialism” in a Fox News interview just this week: * https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-statehood-full-bore-socialism https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-sta... WTF?
    - beatgammit 7y ago
      Well, it would certainly increase representation for people who support policies that Republicans call "socialist", so the result will be more of those policies. I don't know what "full bore socialism" means to him, but socialism in general has a different definition for politicians than academics. For example, I'd consider the US to be more socialist (in the academic sense) than Scandinavian countries in many ways, yet people like Bernie Sanders use the term to describe policies they'd like to adopt from Scandinavia. Both sides get it wrong, with the right labeling everything they don't like with it, and the left trying to make the term more palatable, yet they both use it completely incorrectly. For some reason, when most people say "communism" they mean "socialism" and when they say "socialism" they mean "progressivism". Likewise for the opposite end of the current spectrum, where by saying "fascism" they mean "nationalism" and/or "protectionism", and by "nationalism" they mean "patriotism". Basically, they'll say whatever will get the biggest emotional impact, even if it's completely false (but has been used similarly in the past).
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      It can be a deliberate tactic of the right, but elements of the left make the same error. That’s my point. This is more about Americans not actually understanding the difference between socialism and social democracy.
      - throw0101a 7y ago
        The Right has been doing this for several decades: * http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1482196/ http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1482196/
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    Well yeah, the Democratic Party seems to be trying to make the term "socialism" have a positive connotation instead of the negative one it has had for decades. Republicans label everything they don't like as "socialism", so the simplest way to fix the negative view of various policies is to reverse the connotation of the word. Neither side cares about actual definitions of words, they just care about how the public feels about them. I wish we could change politics to be more of a "roundtable discussion" with the discussion topic being some tangible problem, and each political group promoting some solution with a list of pros and cons. You'd them vote for candidates based on their ability to make rational arguments, not party affiliation. But no, we don't live in a reasonable world, so we'll have an ongoing mudslinging match where occasionally good policy gets passed. In this world, I hope for a deadlock in Congress because we get good policy so infrequently.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    Maybe they should make it clearer that what they want is "socialism with Scandinavian characteristics" then.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Scandinavian countries aren’t socialist though. They’re social democracies. Huge, fundamental difference.

throw0101a 7y ago

> [...] that Republicans think universal healthcare is socialism. Do the Rs really think that, or do they simply say "socialism!" because they've trained their base and some independents to think (socialism = bad)? Centrailly planned economies generally don't work, and I wouldn't want actual socialism for most things where I live. But if you don't like a particular policy, argue the pros/cons of that policy instead of trying to 'slander' it. A lot of people in the US want affordable health care, and there are various ways to implement that, but if you label them all as "socialism", then people will end up "wanting" socialism.

toasterlovin 7y ago
This stems mostly, I think, from a confusion about the difference between social democracy and socialism. And, to be fair, plenty of people on the left make the same mistake. I see lots of red roses appended to Twitter usernames. I think most of those people want socialized medicine and safety nets, not socialized control of the means of production. Yet they call themselves socialists.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > This stems mostly, I think, from a confusion about the difference between social democracy and socialism. Sure. And my argument/thesis is that this confusion is a deliberate tactic by Right-leaning politicians. McConnell called granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, “full bore socialism” in a Fox News interview just this week: * https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-statehood-full-bore-socialism https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-sta... WTF?
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    Well, it would certainly increase representation for people who support policies that Republicans call "socialist", so the result will be more of those policies. I don't know what "full bore socialism" means to him, but socialism in general has a different definition for politicians than academics. For example, I'd consider the US to be more socialist (in the academic sense) than Scandinavian countries in many ways, yet people like Bernie Sanders use the term to describe policies they'd like to adopt from Scandinavia. Both sides get it wrong, with the right labeling everything they don't like with it, and the left trying to make the term more palatable, yet they both use it completely incorrectly. For some reason, when most people say "communism" they mean "socialism" and when they say "socialism" they mean "progressivism". Likewise for the opposite end of the current spectrum, where by saying "fascism" they mean "nationalism" and/or "protectionism", and by "nationalism" they mean "patriotism". Basically, they'll say whatever will get the biggest emotional impact, even if it's completely false (but has been used similarly in the past).
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    It can be a deliberate tactic of the right, but elements of the left make the same error. That’s my point. This is more about Americans not actually understanding the difference between socialism and social democracy.
    - throw0101a 7y ago
      The Right has been doing this for several decades: * http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1482196/ http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1482196/
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- beatgammit 7y ago
  Well yeah, the Democratic Party seems to be trying to make the term "socialism" have a positive connotation instead of the negative one it has had for decades. Republicans label everything they don't like as "socialism", so the simplest way to fix the negative view of various policies is to reverse the connotation of the word. Neither side cares about actual definitions of words, they just care about how the public feels about them. I wish we could change politics to be more of a "roundtable discussion" with the discussion topic being some tangible problem, and each political group promoting some solution with a list of pros and cons. You'd them vote for candidates based on their ability to make rational arguments, not party affiliation. But no, we don't live in a reasonable world, so we'll have an ongoing mudslinging match where occasionally good policy gets passed. In this world, I hope for a deadlock in Congress because we get good policy so infrequently.
- 0815test 7y ago
  Maybe they should make it clearer that what they want is "socialism with Scandinavian characteristics" then.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Scandinavian countries aren’t socialist though. They’re social democracies. Huge, fundamental difference.