I disagree as you have democrats branding themselves as socialists and exclaiming that it’s a good thing. They are wrangling the definition out from the dark side, trying to make it sound right despite the rich history of failure and misery tied to socialist regimes throughout history.
They are like, “our version will work, because ____________” It won’t and never will.
Do you think the Dems have done anywhere near as good of a job at positively spinning ‘socialism’ compared to the GOP negatively spinning ‘socialism’?
If so, did the GOP dominate elected positions by accident?
I think they’re trying to show the differences between real socialism and what’s being proposed in many first world countries.
I’ve never personally lived under real socialism, but so far every single word I’ve heard from those that who have say something along the line of “this isn’t socialism. Silly Americans diluting the word”
No, but it’s only recently that they tried. There were plenty of cold warriors in the Democratic Party, there are still a few left.
That’s because what they are describing isn’t socialism anyway. It’s a market system with a generous welfare state.
I wish both sides would get it right, but I’m not currently engaged in that US culture war. I’d say that the US healthcare system moving to a Swiss or German system would be beneficial, but I don’t know how those systems would scale.
Edit: I’m also not sure it is best done at federal level, but I’ve rarely seen a federal solution that wasn’t a mess.
What Fox News calls socialism has nothing to do with actual socialism. If anything, constant obsession with the s-word has diluted it’s meaning much as was the case with the word “nazi”.
Which in turn means that young American perceive as “socialism” political positions that are center or even center right in Europe and in turn due to this mislabeling make a dangerous logical leap that actual socialists are a-ok. Free health care? That means Stalin wasn’t bad, right?
Couldn’t agree more. There may be good fiscal reasons to avoid social programs, but the most stodgy, patrician Tory government started UK social health care and no one considered it a Marxist act to make provision for the poor.
Edit: it’s among the reasons I detest the US conservative penny pinching. There’s nothing left wing about soberly making provision for the worst off.
US conservatives would freak out over Otto von Bismarck’s policies labeling them “Marxist”
Also, what amazes me is how US conservatives convinced their supporters to vehemently oppose policies that are in their personal best interest.
It’s a very interesting act of double think. But that’s true of any political base I’ve encountered.
I think a lot of it has to do with the outsized importance attributed to Thatcher and Reagan by modern conservatives.
Neither of them are the messiah of conservatism, but they often take that role.
Socialism started out as a negative word, there wasn’t much leg work to do to keep the connotation the same. Mainly, socialism, given it’s historic failure is largely a negative term. Hell even one of the stalwarts of Scandinavian socialistic systems in the country of Finland caused the government to collapse in April of this year. A place with a scant population and near zero diversity couldn’t handle it.
So, no the GOP didn’t brand socialism as bad, it’s been a bad word since the end of WW2.
And they are failing. Going by Bernie’s medical proposals, it doesn’t sound good. It’s astonishingly expensive, would put a major gash in the economy and your choice of doctors would be driven by the government.
I didn’t see any private option in Bernie’s version. And since he’s a front runner of the far left, he’s the one I pay attention to.
Biden’s proposal is much more reasonable.
Dude. Neither Sweden nor Finland are socialist.
The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies, as well as typical cultural practices, common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining with a high percentage of the workforce unionised, while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism.
Do you seriously think that countries that gave to the world companies like IKEA and Nokia are socialist? Real socialist countries have problems producing toilet paper, let alone the Angry Birds franchise.
Again, free health care is not socialism.
Agreed. It can, however, be done efficiently and without undue strain on the exchequer. Something I’d have thought conservatives would appreciate.
And, just to be clear, I grasp the cynicism yanks hold for it, but I ask them, do you want to tailor a humane and decent option, or let your opposition sell the farm for it?
That sounds like Christianity to me. We ain’t wanting none of that thar idolitree here.
I agree, but I was working under the word’s connotations and understanding according to many across the pond. Many on the left point to Scandinavia as a beacon of “Socialism” and how effective it has been in lily white countries with small wealthy populations. But technically, a social program does not a socialist make.
It’s a socialist program, but not socialism in full bloom. It’s still collapsed the Finish government.
I am not totally thrilled with IKEA, their picture instructions suck.
No it didn’t collapse. Try reading beyond clickbait headlines.
Like the VA? Improvements have been made, but many military are still scared of it and choose private doctors that cost them more.
When the VA runs like a Swiss watch, I listen more.
I very specifically said ‘socialism’ and went into detail multiple times about how the GOP doesn’t use the real socialism in its 30+ YR tirade of watering down the term for political wins.
I’m explicitly, exclusively, talking about the GOP concept of ‘socialism,’ in which the binary checks are GovtSpending = TRUE and SupportedByDemocrats = TRUE. Forgetting whether or not it’s actually socialism.
I’m aware. I said that above. Because the GOP will never be matched when it comes to branding. Wherein you said
Make up your mind lol
Then you didn’t read it. Bernie’s plan explicitly allows for private insurance to exist. Bernie just takes the plan so far that the expectation is it would barely be necessary.
Agreed.
Surprise?
I don’t see it:
Unquestionably, the VA is awful. But that’s no reason for American conservatives to abandon the field and not try!
There are advanced economies in good economic health with workable systems.
Eventually a Bernie will get in, wouldn’t you rather not cede one of the largest electoral issues to the opposition?
Here you go.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/american-health-security-act-of-2013?inline=file
You might want to post Cliffs.