Abigail Spanberger, Democratic Congresswoman: “I don’t want to hear the word Socialism ever again.” (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

It's already changed a lot.  Younger people don't feel the same as older people about the word.  Attitudes are changing it takes a little time.

Well, I see no point in losing elections during that “little time.” 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Well, I see no point in losing elections during that “little time.” 

I'm not trying to lose elections.  But we're coming from two different places.  You don't like "socialism" so there's no trade-off for you between promoting socialist ideals and winning elections.  But for me, who would like to make this country more socialist, there is a tension between those two goals.  And sometimes it may be worth taking a short term risk to help realize a long term goal.

 

[The Commish]

And this won’t work unless you can avoid the word “socialist” altogether. The minute you explain “this is what we already have that is socialist” or “this is why socialism isn’t that bad” the Republicans are already winning because you’re using the term. 

I literally just said to talk about the things...not the term  

Maybe strategists are a waste of money as people hear/read what they want even if it's not even said.

 

[moleculo]

Many of you seem to think that it’s a question of explaining the actual benefits of socialism; that will serve to “undemonize” the word. 

That won’t work. 
  
The word “socialism” has been ingrained as poison in the public psyche. Perhaps that can be changed over a long period of time: I have no idea though I have my doubts. For the foreseeable future, it’s going to lose elections for Democrats and win them for Republicans. That’s the reality. 

I disagree.  it's poison with the far right - the folks who only watch Fox or listen to Rush.  For the apolitical man on the street, especially younger voters, I don't think "socialism" is poison. 

 

[The Commish]

This is so embarrassingly simple to fix that the news agencies in the state of Florida figured out how to do it with respect to climate change.  It's a hot button issue here in the state...daily flooding, flooding with particular phases of the moon, hurricanes etc.  It's been a huge battle to get action of any sort, so what did they do?  The news agencies between Miami, Orlando and Tampa all agreed not to use the term "climate change" in their coverage.  Instead, stories were reported based on what was happening.  In Miami when things flood, they focus on the fact that there are floods and the solutions that would fix the problem of flooding.  The "why" wasn't front and center.  The problem/symptom was.  It's been remarkable what the media outlets here have done to help politicians get out of their own way to get things moving in the right direction.

 

[timschochet]

I disagree.  it's poison with the far right - the folks who only watch Fox or listen to Rush.  For the apolitical man on the street, especially younger voters, I don't think "socialism" is poison. 

Then no disrespect but I don’t think you’re paying attention to the election we just had.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Then no disrespect but I don’t think you’re paying attention to the election we just had.  

Moleculo has definitely participated in a lot of the discussion here.  He can pay attention and also disagree with you.

 

[moleculo]

Moleculo has definitely participated in a lot of the discussion here.  He can pay attention and also disagree with you.

thanks.  I have had these "socialism" conversations with folks, both here and IRL.  There is a lot of pushback and when I hear Venezuela cited, I move on because I know that's not a discussion that's worth having.  I like to talk about how America already has some elements of socialism - utilities, infrastructure, our military, public education - all of these are centrally controlled facets of society that most people are OK with. Unfortunately, that's when things go sideways and turn into complaints about teachers unions but that's another story.

 

[timschochet]

Moleculo has definitely participated in a lot of the discussion here.  He can pay attention and also disagree with you.

I didn’t mean it the way you’re putting it. Let me restate: IMO, he and you are getting the wrong message. The correct message is that the general public doesn’t like the word socialism. It’s not just the far right. If it was only the far right more Democrats would have won. The young people who you claim like the word more are not making up for the older people who don’t. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I didn’t mean it the way you’re putting it. Let me restate: IMO, he and you are getting the wrong message. The correct message is that the general public doesn’t like the word socialism. It’s not just the far right. If it was only the far right more Democrats would have won. The young people who you claim like the word more are not making up for the older people who don’t. 

I don't think we disagree as much as you think.  I agree that wide swaths of this country have negative associations with the term "socialism."

Where we disagree is what we should do with that information.  Your preference is to deal with that negative association by never speaking of socialism again.  My preference is to deal with that negative association by talking about socialism a lot, in a positive manner.

ETA:  Also, the old people that don't like the word socialism are going to die off eventually.  The young people that like socialism better are the future of this country.

 

[hagmania]

I didn’t mean it the way you’re putting it. Let me restate: IMO, he and you are getting the wrong message. The correct message is that the general public doesn’t like the word socialism. It’s not just the far right. If it was only the far right more Democrats would have won. The young people who you claim like the word more are not making up for the older people who don’t. 

They will soon enough.

I don't really care about losing a majority here or there. A progressive wave rises and will be here in the not-so-distant future. Us young folk can run out the clock on the boomers.

 

[Mookie]

Labeling something as "socialism" is the right's lazy way of dismissing policy initiatives that benefit, and are paid for, all of us.  It's highly effective because it focuses the discussion away from the merits and/or downsides of the actual policy, and onto the problems of socialism/communism.  So instead of talking about affordable health care, we wind up discussing the fall of the USSR.  I say it's lazy because every policy or law can be viewed as a "creep towards socialism" in some way, and it allows people to avoid discussing the specifics of government programs.  Without knowing it (they are being intellectually lazy after all), they are advocating for anarchy and fascism, although they do not appreciate their views being labeled this way. 

 

[hagmania]

Basically, it's a line in the sand for the general Democrat platform. Cater to progressive values or lose votes. Many just don't care about the party.

And I agree, it may indeed be ideal for Democrats to ditch the progressive wing, so long as you gain enough compared to what you've lost. I'm willing to wait it out. The time will come.

Good luck primary-ing the progressive voices.

 

[Summer Wheat]

They will soon enough.

I don't really care about losing a majority here or there. A progressive wave rises and will be here in the not-so-distant future. Us young folk can run out the clock on the boomers.

I agree.  It will take a few decades for the USA to accept and become a socialist type of country. It will happen slowly but it is coming. On the plus side it is much easier for the government to control the population that it is now.

 

[Mookie]

I agree.  It will take a few decades for the USA to accept and become a socialist type of country. It will happen slowly but it is coming. On the plus side it is much easier for the government to control the population that it is now.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a socialist type of country".  Do existing programs such as Medicare/Medicaid or social security make us a "socialist type of country" today?    

 

[KiddLattimer]

What I find interesting is how this election became a referendum on progressives where almost no progressive candidates were on a ballot of significance and where progressive ballot initiatives passed in places where democrats lost or won narrowly. 

I don't mean Tim, I've probably seen about 10 articles in major publications about how "progressives are the problem". All of them just happened to come to that conclusion at the exact same time, just a couple of days after being completely wrong about this entire election cycle.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Republicans consistently win the public rhetoric game here.  They are so much better at it than the Democrats. In our country, the fact is that things like a living wage (seen as admirable in the UK), public health care (completely normal and expected throughout the civilized world), public education (same) and a minimal social security net for our most needy citizens is considered a radical, anti-American "socialist" agenda.

Republicans win the rhetoric game because they exist as a club, a society of people who want there to be rules to all this, abided by and shouted in unison. Even when the Tea Party broke away, it was more about the party enforcing rules they were lax on, not a new set.

Democrats represent "everyone else" and do so without a set of rules. When i covered the Democratic Convention in '76, i was told to be sure to be on the floor on platform day. I immediately knew why - there were floor fights on EVERYTHING (hell, there were still Dixiecrats and Black Panthers then - imagine those "discussions"). I spent two days @ the 1980 Convention as the guest of its Chairman cuz i'd made friends in '76 w the guy Carter ended up choosing to run it and it was an entirely nuther fight. Some old Kennedy operatives attempted to hijack the platform as a parting shot from Teddy's losing campaign and there were actual shoving matches on the floor. When those kind of things mattered, tumult was always the order of the day.

Now that much of policy is settled by money and not people, things are no longer that way, but the wide panoply of constituencies still exist. That's why Pete Buttigieg worked harder on the umbrella aspect of his candidacy than the policy aspect, and that's why i got excited about Pete. The way money has taken over everything has forced leftists into a socialist agenda, because that's the only way the tablescraps the gluttons leave on their banquet table stand a chance to feed everybody else. But their own party doesnt represent that agenda anymore because its policies are so easily demonized that it cant afford to cross over to its own majority viewpoint. And that's why Republicans, one third of America, consistently beats the 2/3 that arent.

Now, the Democrats have to worry about an aged, addled leader likely to follow the sit-on-it style of his old boss and an heir-apparent VP schooled in Willie Brown opportunism (an even more morally-bankrupt version of the Clintonian give-business-everything-so-they'll-treat-you-like-a-grownup style) as the brulee atop a bubbling pudding of post-modern discontent. The only way i can see to keep this from boiling over is for someone to convince the rank&file that, whatever their concerns, they must be broadcast as a "for America" policy rather than an "against power" trope.

America has NEVER torn down anything by tearing it down. It is the legacy of our colonial history to build over, build better rather than destroy. We installed our own government before tearing down British control. We beat the South, then let it back in; beat Germany & Japan and then rebuilt them. The money didnt do that - people did that. People may still be able to beat money, but its getting close. People arent gonna beat money with victimhood, resentment any more than they are with the less-toxic corruption they just installed. Democracy must decide what it is for and act on it, whether in groups of four or four million. The time is short.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

There are progression issues with pretty broad national support. It is good to push those forward. There are other issues that might need to look for incremental progress rather than anything dramatic. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

One of my goals is to get Americans to stop being scared of "socialism" and the sorts of social safety nets common in places like Western Europe and Canada.  Treating the word "socialism" as some sort of dirty word akin to "fascism" is contrary to that interest.  

It's easier to use a different word than to change what a word means.

If we don't want the government owning and managing the factories, let's not say "socialism."

 

[Juxtatarot]

What I find interesting is how this election became a referendum on progressives where almost no progressive candidates were on a ballot of significance and where progressive ballot initiatives passed in places where democrats lost or won narrowly. 

I don't mean Tim, I've probably seen about 10 articles in major publications about how "progressives are the problem". All of them just happened to come to that conclusion at the exact same time, just a couple of days after being completely wrong about this entire election cycle.

Why do you think the Democrats lost House seats?

 

[KiddLattimer]

Why do you think the Democrats lost House seats?

I would have to look into the candidates specifically, but as a whole I think the Democrats ran a campaign full of empty platitudes that didn't offer people a lot in terms of policy. I also think they made an incorrect assumption that the never-Trump republicans they tried to appeal to would also follow the democrats down ballot, which of course they wouldn't... their problem was with DT specifically, not Republicans as a whole.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

"Socialism" is similar to many topics that require nuance and dialogue. They all take a beating with bumper stickers slogan and tweets.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

agree with this.  somehow they have to draw a distinction between Venezuela style socialism and Scandinavian style socialism.

Scandinavian style socialism is called "capitalism."

 

[timschochet]

"Socialism" is similar to many topics that require nuance and dialogue. They all take a beating with bumper stickers slogan and tweets.

I dearly wish we lived in a world in which this was not true. But it is. 

 

[Gr00vus]

It'd be nice if we could just discuss the individual policies and not worry so much about general labels. The labels have meaning when you're discussing an overall philosophy, but we really do a disservice to ourselves when we got overly focused on labels when trying to determine if a particular policy makes sense for us.

 

[Stoneworker]

The Democratic Socialists of America website repeatedly denounces capitalism/private ownership...and is filled with advocacy of various forms of public ownership (co-ops, etc.). That is obviously a huge step further away from our current capitalism-based system and much closer to full-on socialism.

Therefore, as long as Progressives either self-identify as Democratic Socialists (Bernie and friends), or are actual members (AOC), their opponents will successfully use short-hand and label them as full-on Socialists... 

...which is no different than how the DSA members proudly refer to themselves.

"We call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are."

"We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas..."

"We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them."

"Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives."

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/