The Right’s New “Socialist” Rhetoric
One thing most people probably don’t realize is that there are these international organizations of political parties from around the world. The big right-of-center parties—including the GOP, the Christian Democrats in Germany, the Conservatives in the UK and Canada, etc.—are in the International Democratic Union. The major left-of-center parties are typically in the Socialist International. But there’s also a “Liberal International” which is for liberal parties in the European sense, usually small right-of-center outfits that emphasis deregulation, social tolerance, and a business perspective. But based on what’s essentially terminological confusion and a desire to not be attacked as “socialists,” the Democratic Party isn’t a member of the Socialist International even though basically all the equivalent parties abroad—the sundry “labor” and “social democrat” parties of the UK, Australia, and the continent—are.
I wonder if the medium-term impact of the new red scare that the right is currently engaged in will be to change this dynamic. Mark Liebovich reports for The New York Times:
It seems that “socialist” has supplanted “liberal” as the go-to slur among much of a conservative world confronting a one-two-three punch of bank bailouts, budget blowouts and stimulus bills. Right-leaning bloggers and talk radio hosts are wearing out the brickbat. Senate and House Republicans have been tripping over their podiums to invoke it. The S-bomb has become as surefire a red-meat line at conservative gatherings as “Clinton” was in the 1990s and “Pelosi” is today.
“Earlier this week, we heard the world’s best salesman of socialism address the nation,” Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said on Friday, referring, naturally, to a certain socialist in chief.
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas decried the creation of “socialist republics” in the United States. “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff,” Mr. Huckabee said, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference here over the weekend, a kind of Woodstock for young conservatives.
By redirecting their rhetoric several clicks to the left, conservatives seem to me to be essentially collaborating in efforts to shift the center of public opinion to the left. Instead of a scenario in which progressive politicians had to squirm awkwardly away from the liberal label, the scary concept is now socialism. This actually makes it much easier to sell progressive policy as little more than a practical response to shifting events, but the ideological agenda it’s allegedly serving has been made so much more outlandish. At the same time, by associating socialism” with a popular president, they’re bestowing it with new legitimacy. If Obama’s policies can succeed in turning the economy around, maybe people will decide they like socialism just fine. Of course that’s a big “if” but it’s the “if” that hangs over all present-day political conversations.
37 Responses to “The Right’s New “Socialist” Rhetoric”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Indeed, this seems to be moving us back to the dynamic of the 60s and earlier, when Republicans attacked Democrats for being socialists. Reagan somehow managed to turn that into attacking the Democrats for being liberal, which would have seemed fairly ridiculous in the 50s.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
Also – is the Democratic Party a member of any international organization of political parties? It seems we are neither members of the Socialist International (in spite of, as you say, similar parties like British Labour or the SPD being in that) nor of the Liberal International (which, while including some center-right continental parties, also includes the Canadian Liberal Party and the British Liberal Democrats, also ideologically fairly close to the Democrats in the US).
Is even the “Liberal International” too much for the Democrats? Pathetic.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:57 am
To be honest the Democratic Party could join the International Democratic Union too, because it is to the right of most conservative parties in the world. It is strange that people think “right-wing” and “left-wing” mean the same thing across countries.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:59 am
I think until fairly recently the Democratic National Committee did have “observer” status at the Liberal International, and it may be that the NDI (a loose DNC affiliate) still does have representation in it.
That being said, I’m not sure what full membership in any International would bring in terms of tangible benefits to either major US party. Membership in the IDU probably is a low-cost option for the GOP, but it is hard to see what grand dividends are to be had. If the US had a proportional representation system, and/or if we further had a huge number of expats who were allotted a congressional seat or seats (as a surprising number of other countries do), then I could see Internationals as a cost-effective way to set up reciprocal GOTV efforts. But obviously we don’t.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Both Democrats and Republicans are thoroughly “socialist”, in the sense that both parties are very accomplished at spending other people’s money. Of course, when you’re not the party in power, you ascribe all kinds of evil motives to the spending of the party in power. And larger ideas are all but meaningless in today’s politics: somehow, shoveling another $30 billion in to AIG is “capitalism”, but creating a green job is “socialism”.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
in other words, ‘liberal’ is no longer a slur in america.
thank you, obama, for doing what three decades of cringing democrats never did.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Oh, also, there is another International that might be a better fit for the DNC: the “Centrist Democrat International“, the newly-renamed and re-branded collection of parties that used to be called the “Christian Democrat International” until 2001, and before that the Christian Democrat and People’s Parties International.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
The Democratic Socialists of America are the United States representation in the Socialist International, and since they are not actually a political party they do support Democrats from time to time.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Most democrats have never been fans of “socialism”, either the word or the principles. Stealing the occasional policy, maybe, but not the idea behind it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Other than that, agree with kid, that I’m glad “liberal” is no longer a slur.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
in other words, ‘liberal’ is no longer a slur in america.
Bingo. It’s now a slur to be a socialist, which means that the Overton Window of ideological acceptability has shifted leftwards.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
More imprortantly, if all goes well maybe people will stop listening to vacuous claims by anti-intellectual self-interested reactionaries and instead learn to think for themselves. You know, evaluate alternative policy paths on their merits rather than on labels bestowed upon them by pundits, accurately or otherwise.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
It just goes to show the lack of ideas in the Republican party when they throw out accusations of socialism. The more that progressives actually work on providing solutions, the more that the right makes accusations that might have been more successful (if no more true) 20 or 30 years ago. This turning back the clock is of no benefit to the Republican party, since the problems we are having today don’t seem to have any parallels in living memory (we’ve lived through recessions, sure, but very few of us have lived through a financial collapse as steep as the one we’re living through now). In short, keep at it, Rushbo!
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Matt says: Of course that’s a big “if” but it’s the “if” that hangs over all present-day political conversations.
Oh yeah as if ObaRoid’s metric free rhetoric is not intended to guarantee suck-cess.
After all he’ll claim a gazillion jobs saved!
It would have been so much worse!
The Dow is at 5000? Well praise Wright cause it woulda been at 3k.
Don’t tell me you aren’t already rehearsing your lines MattBot.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I’m glad that liberal is no longer a slur, and I’d be happy if events caused us to get over the taboo of the term “socialism”. On the other hand, is there really any need for these international political party organizations? I’m sure they get a few nice dinners and junkets out of the membership, but that’s about it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The NYT is only just noticing this? The “socialist” rhetoric was in full flow during the election campaign.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Prediction: ‘Socialist’ will be so over used and the Obama administration so successful that a lot of people will start identifying themselves as socialists.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
(I just posted this on T. Coates blog too – you folks and your topicality!)
Anybody know of any studies about American reactions to the word “socialism” by age?
I’m 31. I can vaguely remember the weird anti-communist stuff from Reagan and the 80’s, but to be honest, even then, the USSR of that era was just poor and lousy at working – it certainly wasn’t the sort of terrifying regime of Stalin in particular. It’s been decades since communists were potentially spying on the US and plotting overthrow in any meaningful way. Longer still since anti-capitalist anarchists committed meaningful acts of terrorism at home.
I see this throwing around of the scare word “socialism”, and there’s a part of me that wonders if this is one more tactic that will end up alienating younger people for the good old GOP. Maybe I’m wrong. “Socialists want to ruin everything! They want to take away all your good stuff! Oh, by the way, your health care premium just quadrupled – sorry, it’s just business, hope you don’t have to drop your care – and, well, I know you have that fancy BA in English, but the market being what it is, we’re going to have to pass you over for the management position here at Kinko’s. Anyway, socialists are the devil!” I mean, really? Do younger people REALLY quake in fear about socialism?
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Hmmm. I believe liberal is no longer a slur because Democrat is usually synonymous with Liberal. I wouldn’t hold any hope of the socialist label moving toward acceptance. Personally, I think there is an easier way, right or wrong, to connect socialism with communism and we all know the C word is still taboo. I agree with the commentor above, I don’t particularly think that “regulation” and a “safety net” in a capitalist world amounts to socialism and I think those two concepts are pretty widely accepted and popular.
The Republicans are grasping at straws. With that said, its worked in the past and I would be cautious. It would help to explain that regulation and a safety net are necessary as checks and balances to the corruption of unfettered capitalism and just leave it at that, without trying to label it as left, liberal, or socialist. Let the window move on its own. Current circumstances are certainly still in our favor.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Everybody is overthinking the GOP’s new Socialism boogeyman theme. I would bet $500 that few Americans, other than academics, know anything about the various political parties outside of the US.
And to back up Nathan’s point above, younger voters only know soviet style socialism from history books. And most educated people in the 30-50 group have pretty positive impressions of European-style socialism through travel or work overseas.
Just about the only folks who might be drawn in are the senior crowd – but these folks remember the devastation of the Depression and the positive impact of the New Deal, so are unlikely to fall for the GOP’s scare tactics.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
We also slumber in our sleep.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
In ‘06 Howard Dean gave a keynote address at the Party of European Socialists conference. Many of my “liberal” friends call themselves social democrats and I tend to use that label for myself. (Of course most of my anarchist friends think I’m a capitalist pig.
)
Just as liberalism is no longer a dirty word, I’m sure in time socialism will recover from it’s association with Soviet communism. Honestly, who’s afraid of Tony Blair?
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Interesting speculation about moving the imaginary rhetoric spectrum to the left. I’m a little skeptical because I don’t think ordinary people (whoever they are) really care all that much about this ideological crap. Republicans care a LOT about it because it’s sort of all they have…
This ’socialism’ gambit the gop is trying could redound negatively onto them, but I think the main reason it would is just because it’s stupid, and they’re flailing. If you think about the ‘revolutionary’ republican’s rhetorical strength over the last 25 years, it’s really sort of fragile – effective for a time, but not durable. Reagan – and importantly, HW Bush, as we remember – demonized the word ‘liberal’; demonizing something means using emotion to distort what that thing is. After Reagan/Bush1 got through with it, ‘liberal’ didn’t mean much of anything anymore, since it no longer meant what it had actually meant. Then W. Bush came to town and emptied the word ‘conservative’ of *its* meaning, too.
So what are Republicans going to do now? They’ve got nothin’ but the old stand-by. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that there aren’t too many people very scared about Joe Stalin right now (I mean real people, not ideologues). My, my. It’s sad, in a way. Play to the base, run away from the base, play to the base, run away… Flailing.
Not only is winning political power and having to govern fatal to the current GOP, but they can’t even survive long without a cold war. The conservative revolution was always first and foremost a reactionary, in every sense of that word, movement. Reaction can be powerful, but it’s not very durable, since it depends so vitally on what’s being reacted to. In the last ‘administration’, Islamic terrorism *had* to be The ‘transcendent’ existential challange of our time, because the Party needs one of those – they’re used to it and it’s worked well for them. Cheney and the neocons knew.
So, the 60s are long-gone, the cold war is over…is crying ’socialism’ going to work to any degree? Are people really very concerned about Chavez? I’d say it’s a poor gambit for the GOP, but we will certainly find out exactly to what extent it does work, because they will say or try anything, no matter how ridiculous, and something, however consequential, will stick to the wall eventually.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The Socialist International isn’t socialist in any meaningful sense.
Chávez in Venezuela is, to me, a pretty good archetype of a socialist leader. Obama has nothing in common with Chávez, therefore Obama isn’t a socialist.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
The Socialist International isn’t socialist in any meaningful sense.
And who made you the expert on deciding who is socialist or not? Those people are the socialists of today. Socialism has evolved since the 19th century, you know? Smart socialists don’t feel the need to nationalize everything in sight anymore.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Oh great, more of this hipster BS about ‘this is the world of today, get with the picture’.
I consider myself a socialist, therefore I feel entitled to say who is and is not a socialist. Socialism is the diametrical opposite of capitalism, therefore those like the Socialist International who want to maintain capitalism are not socialists.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
So realizing that the overwhelming majority of socialists and social democrats of the world are not, in fact, completely opposed to capitalism is “hipster BS”? You may not like this fact but don’t try to deny reality.
If you want the abolition of private property, you can still call yourself a variety of other names: Leninist, Maoist, Communist… The meaning of those words hasn’t really changed with the years, unlike socialist.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
As a fairly intelligent human being, I feel entitled say that Hector is not.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Why oh Why,
You appear to believe that words have no inherent, historical meaning, and that anyone who wants to call themselves, say, a ’socialist’ or a ‘Christian’ or a “democrat’ should be able to. I don’t agree- words have an agreed upon definition, and should not be infinitely malleable in meaning.
When I talk about ’socialism’, I’m generally referring to a social order in which the means of production are, in some sense, socially owned. That would most likely involve a combination of state ownership, local community ownership, cooperative ownership, and probably some smallholder ownership at the level of peasants, household industries, and so forth. So no, not complete state ownership, but there would be no room for ownership by the private capitalist either.
That’s the historical definition, and the one that has been used throughout the last century. It’s certainly the definition that Venezuela’s ruling party was invoking when they changed their name to ‘PSUV’ a couple years ago. And it’s the meaning that I denote when I call myself a socialist. That makes sense, doesn’t it?
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Hector is hectoring, heh. As a paper member of Democratic Socialists of America, since the merger of NAM and DSOC to create DSA back in ‘93, IIRC, Hector reminds me od a Sparticist League Trotskyist or a Stalinist or Maoist sectarian from the RCP. Go join Workers World Party is you feel the S.I. is a Revisionist, counter-revolutionary tool of the Imperialist Bourgeoisie!
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
It feels weird to be agreeing with Hector, but “socialism” is supposed to be an alternative to capitalism. A fan of the ideas of anyone from Marx to Bookchin or AJ Muste who wishes to replace the existing economic system with one governed collectively on democratic principles is a socialist. A self-described “socialist” who is in favor of capitalism, maybe with a few changes, is not in fact a socialist in any meaningful sense. People are of course entitled to describe themselves however they please; but the rest of us are entitled to stick to using words based on clear definitions and the preservation of meaningful distinctions.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
People like Kal and Hector forget one fact: socialism is alive and well in many countries, and socialists in those countries would disagree with everything they say.
Theories evolve after being tested by reality, if people in “charge” of those theories have any skin in the game (unlike, say, Chicago economists). There is a Socialist Party in France, and it is mainstream. There is a Social Democrat Party in Germany, and it is mainstream. And the Labor Party in the UK is a member of the Socialist International.
What people like Hector never have to deal with is reality. Most of the 20th century dogma of socialism was tested in France – including nationalization of banks – during the 80’s. And it failed.
Not surprisingly, the French Socialist Party adapted and accepted the fact that not all capitalistic ideas are wrong. Nationalizing the health care and education industries still sounds like a good idea, as Roosevelt implied when he talked of “social rights”. But it doesn’t mean everything should be nationalized.
Chavez has only been the latest in a series of disastrous Venezuelan leaders, and doesn’t mean much in the debate over socialism. Why can’t people like Hector see that? Look at Sweden or Denmark if you want to see a successful socialist state, where even the “conservative” parties are to the left of the Democrats.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Why oh why,
Um, Venezuelans are producing much more food than they were in 1999, they’re better nourished, better educated, healthier, and happier. So I’m not sure why you think that Chávez is a ‘disastrous’ leader. If there is one country in the world where ’socialism’ is alive and well today (well, really there are more than one), it’s Venezuela. You can keep the French and British ’socialists’ if you want, as for me I see them as just a kindler, gentler form of capitalism.
Chávez has, of course, learned from some of the errors of the Soviet model, and appears to be trying to more follow Yugoslavian style, cooperatively owned, market socialism. Which, actually, worked very well in Yugoslavia for a long time.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:26 am
Why oh why – There is the Socialist Party in France, which has that name for historical reasons but, as you more or less admit, abandoned socialism for practical purposes in the 1980s – and which is now in something of a tailspin, which is related to its lack of credibility as an opposition and its insufficient response to the economic crisis. There are also actual socialists.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 am
“Socialism” has become meaningless nowadays. The explanantory value of a term that can be used to describe anything ranging from the GDR to New Labour is close to zero.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:49 am
Novakant,
I kind of agree with you. But in that case, what term would you choose to describe the current governments of Bolivia and Venezuela?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Greeting. This world is given as the prize for the men in earnest; and that which is true of this world, is truer still of the world to come.
I am from Australia and also now teach English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Turkey flight tickets, turkey airline tickets, cheap flights, flight bookings tickets, we offer great flight deals that provide you the best cheap airline.”
Thanks for the help
, Derrick.