Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You consider Obama a clear capitalist but many do not. We believe that once he is no longer restrained by the politics of a seeking election to a second term, he will run true to form.
First of all, he's gonna campaign on that platform (see the budget he just released, or will release, I haven't checked if it's out yet but we are within a week from it) and not wait for election. He's flip-flopped on deficit and austerity and will submit a budget with a greater deficit and campaign on taxing the rich more. This is not going to be a post-election surprise, it will be his platform (and Romney is going to have to adapt to it).
But I still think we aren't talking about the same thing though. Even if his timidity takes leave in his second term it is very clear that while he wants to expand the social contract he has no aspirations to instill a socialist economic system or undermine the market economy.
You sound like you are describing someone who wants to do big government
or even social capitalism
with an increasingly planned economy
, not someone who wants to market socialism
which I think most people think of when they hear the term "socialist". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't see him as wanting to make the economic system of the US abandon capitalism do you? You are just saying he's going to be more aggressive about pursuing social agendas right?
Personally, "socialist" isn't a curse word. I don't argee with socialist principles, but I hardly think those that do are demons. Idiots perhaps, but not demons.
But there are many who do consider it to be a slur on the basis of the pernicious effect that a socialist economic system has on quality of life. And that legitimate qualm with the ideology is leveraged to indict big-government, which is only marginally related to true economic socialism.
Obviously the socialtist among us fear the label of "socialist," just as the leftists among us fear the label of "liberal."
I don't see it as being the same thing. I get the connection, as many people will disavow labels that have undergone linguistic derogation, but the derogation of "socialism" was largely achieved under a meaning that is quite different from how you use it, while the derogation of "liberal" doesn't include such definitional equivocation.
Is anyone retreating from "conservative," or "capatalists?"
Not as many, but that makes perfect sense because the overwhelming majority of US liberals are capitalists and would not as easily derogate the term. You will see greater use of "right winger" or "neocons" as a slur and thusly greater derogation and disavowal of those labels.