RNC Going Back to the USSR
Via Ed Kilgore it seems that in a non-joking way, the Republican National Committee is actually going to vote for a resolution urging Republicans to start referring to the Democratic Party as “the Democrat Socialist Party.” Washington state’s Jeff Kent explains:
There is nothing more important for our party than bringing the truth to bear on the Democrats’ march to socialism. Just like Ronald Reagan identifying the U.S.S.R. as the evil empire was the beginning of the end to Soviet domination, we believe the American people will reject socialism when they hear the truth about how the Democrats are bankrupting our country and destroying our freedom and liberties.
Ed Kilgore notes:
I don’t know what’s more offensive: the idea of identifying the Democratic Party, which the American people elected to run Congress and the executive branch just six months ago, with the Soviet Union, or the idea that Ronald Reagan brought about the collapse of the Soviet bloc through a magic spell. All in all, the highly adolescent nature of Kent’s thinking is illustrated not only by this comic-book historical revisionism, but by his insistence on retaining in his version of the “Evil Empire” the little-boy-taunt of dropping the last syllable from the adjective “Democratic.”
To take this perhaps more seriously than it deserves, it’s worth observing that the lack of democracy was a substantial problem in the USSR, more so than the socialism. You never see a “Democrat Socialist” party anywhere in the world, but outside the United States “social democrats” or even “socialists” are common enough in electoral politics and to imply that Gerhard Schroder or François Mitterand are basically on a par with Stalin or Mao is a ridiculous slur.
40 Responses to “RNC Going Back to the USSR”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 13th, 2009 at 10:50 am
“Ronald Reagan identifying the U.S.S.R. as the evil empire was the beginning of the end to Soviet domination,”
just to add, that this is also incredibly offensive to lech walesa, to solidarity, to the martyrs of hungary ‘56, prague ‘68, solzhenitsyn, sakarov, the victims of the gulag, and every other group that should actually get credit for “the beginning of the end of soviet domination”.
these republicans are such morons.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:57 am
WTF is he talking about?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Well, the Ukraine girls really Knock me out, Leave the West Behind… and Moscow girls make me sing and shout, And Georgia’s always on my my my my my mind!
Truer now than it ever was…
May 13th, 2009 at 11:02 am
And the generation of young people the GOP is losing reply:
Hunh?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am
…this is also incredibly offensive to lech walesa, to solidarity, to the martyrs of hungary ‘56, prague ‘68, solzhenitsyn, sakarov, the victims of the gulag, and every other group…
It’s also very offensive to Saudi Arabia and low oil prices. I think low oil prices are boycotting us in a fit of pique until republicans give them the credit they deserve.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:05 am
“What’s BOAC, Daddy?”
May 13th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I hope they do it. Then Obama really WILL have a mandate for social democracy/democratic socialism.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I’ll NEVER vote for a Democrat Socialist! Only for the Doody Face Party candidate will I ever vote.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:10 am
As George Orwell (among others) noted, the USSR wasn’t just non-democratic, it wasn’t socialist either. So the comparison is insulting on yet another level.
And to reinforce Kid Bitzer’s point, many of those responsible for ending Communist rule were themselves socialists. Does the GOP not remember that Solidarity was a union? That some of Havel’s allies were Trotskyites and anarchists? That most of the successor regimes were social democratic?
Unfreakingbelievable.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Let’s not catalog all the ways this Republican is getting his history wrong. When someone’s THAT far off the trail, it’s a waste of time to explain where he went wrong. Anyway, the history’s not the point. The point is the politics, though I’m not sure that’s much better- can you really imagine anyone with influence and credibility in the Republican Party doing this?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:25 am
As a socialist myself, I would like to thank the Republican party for continuing to re-normalize socialism within American political discourse, and encourage them to continue tying it to Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, universal health care, regulation of Wall Street, Mom, apple pie, LOST, and everything else that currently enjoys the support of the majority of the country’s voters.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:26 am
LOL, go for it, please. Beg, bribe and browbeat your own members into using your own word for your opposition. A few media outlets will quote Republicans saying “the Democrat Socialist Party” and let it go unremarked, but anyone who aims for even a veneer of credibility will continue calling the Democratic Party by its own name. Any Republican who is quoted as saying “the Democrat Socialist Party” will have to have it followed by an explanation in the next paragraph.
“Sen. Graham was referring to the Democratic Party by the name the Republican Party resolved to use to protest the Democrats’ left-wing economic policies. The Democratic Party has not changed its name.” Yeah, that sure makes the Republican Party look serious about governing.
Has America come up with a phrase with the same meaning as “Please don’t throw me in the briar patch,” but without the racial connotations? If not, it’s overdue, and this blog seems like the place for it. Suggestions?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:28 am
More Beatle blogging, for the oldsters, please. We are all Georgians now!
May 13th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Gerhard Schroder or François Mitterand
Ok, I can totally dig Mitterand – but Schroder?
Matt, he’s a lobbyist for fucking Gazprom and Putin.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Gerhard Fritz Kurt Schröder…is a German politician, and was Chancellor of Germany from 1998 to 2005. A member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD)…
Do your research, Greg.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:32 am
When the President can reach down and define the marketing budget for an effectively nationalized company (Chrysler), then we are in Peron style autarkic capitalism at least – with the direction heading towards a much more mixed (i.e., more socialist) economy than we’ve had. I’m not at all sure why you object to this labeling. It seems far more honest than all the “fascist” rhetoric that was tossed around during Bush’s administration…
May 13th, 2009 at 11:33 am
I don’t suppose it ever occurred to them that constantly calling a very popular president and by far the more popular of the two parties socialist actually makes socialism much less of a scare word. Thanks for moving the Overton window for us, Republicans!
May 13th, 2009 at 11:36 am
“Has America come up with a phrase with the same meaning as “Please don’t throw me in the briar patch,” but without the racial connotations?”
“Please don’t let Michele Bauchman debate me.”- maybe?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I think no one is going to enjoy the results of the massive deficit spending when the cost of issuing treasuries just keeps going up (as it has been of late). Buyers of our debt are starting to wonder how good we are for it (in real and future inflation adjusted terms).
You can want as big a govt as you guys want, but that doesn’t mean that we can actually afford it.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Shhhhhh, if you people keep talking about this gleefully before they do it, they might not do it. And what a shame that would be.
I can hear Obama now, “Listen, we tried to tackle [X issue] in a bipartisan wat, but then the Republicans unilaterally renamed the Democratic Party into the ‘Democrat Socialist Party’. I’m not making this up. How am I supposed to work with these people?”
I think even Broder would have to issue a bipartisanship pass on that one.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Re: Does the GOP not remember that Solidarity was a union? That some of Havel’s allies were Trotskyites and anarchists? That most of the successor regimes were social democratic.
The aforementioned Dubcek, of course, was also a socialist, albeit one who disagreed with specific Soviet policies. Indeed, one of the things that was so outrageous about the 1968 invasion was that the Soviet accusations that Dubcek was a capitalist stooge were so outrageous. As it was pointed out at the time, Dubcek never privatized a single factory.
Re: When the President can reach down and define the marketing budget for an effectively nationalized company (Chrysler), then we are in Peron style autarkic capitalism at least – with the direction heading towards a much more mixed (i.e., more socialist) economy than we’ve had.
Er, France and Germany have had nationalized companies too. Were they socialist?
Re: It seems far more honest than all the “fascist” rhetoric that was tossed around during Bush’s administration…
It was stupid then, James Robertson, and it’s stupid now. Bush and Obama are basically liberal-capitalists, with one a bit more to the left and the other a bit more to the right.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Buyers of our debt are starting to wonder how good we are for it
Your concern is charming. No doubt you were the same idiot supporting Bush because he;d give you more tax cuts than Gore would have. And you supported bush and the Iraq war over Kerry. Didn’t hear any precious concern from you then. Sounds to me like it would be a good idea to ignore your worthless opinions now, you mindless Republican supporting, Bush loving ignoramus. I don’t want to hear any of your worthless opinions given your open hostility to Democrats whose feet you should have been kissing for their dedication to fiscal reposnsibility in opposition to the destructive depredations of the republican fiends you, in your intellectual and moral inadequacy, supportted.
Where do you get the ridiculous idea that you have any idea what you’re talking about? You have a track record fo poor political judgment and a track record of simply obediently doing whatever right-wingers tell you to do, just like they’re telling you to say what you’re saying right now.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
When the President can reach down and define the marketing budget for an effectively nationalized company (Chrysler), then we are in Peron style autarkic capitalism at least
I know conservatives tend to hate nuance but the devil really is in the details, and the fact that the only alternative was bankruptcy and liquidation is a pretty damn big detail. And what does a closed economy have to do with anything, anyway?
I’m not at all sure why you object to this labeling.
Speaking for myself, I don’t object at all. It’s great! It demonstrates that Republicans are stupid and it moves the Overton window to the left. What’s not to like?
May 13th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Great. Does this mean we can call the GOP the Republican Nazi Party?
May 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The entire Republican Party is turning into a guy handing out hand-written, mimeographed rants on a street corner. Right before our eyes.
“The Democrat Socialist Party?” Are we actually going to see the guests on cable news shows using the phrase “The Democrat Socialist Party?” What about Congressmen – will they start using this term on the floor?
Oh, God, I hope so. It’s like they’re hanging a “Crazy Person” sign on themselves.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Let’s rename the GOP the Get Off My Lawn Party.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
In all seriousness, I hope this actually becomes a significant news story.
It makes – at least in part – the Republican Party look like extremist, out of touch loons. That activist members of the party actually think this is a good idea shows why they are out of power. And regarded by moderate and even many fairly conservative Americans as ideologically driven lunatics out of touch with the center of gravity in the country.
The crazy thing is is that – internationally speaking – the United States IS basically a naturally center right country. The problem is is that the GOP is no longer a center right party. The perception this is the case on the part of many middle of the road voters is why they are getting spanked in elections right now. IN sum, a stunt like this simply emphasizes IN SPADES what moderates already believe is true of the GOP and it is the reason their brand is toxic.
As a Democrat (or should I say “a member of the Democrat Socialist Party”) I say more of this please!
May 13th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“It seems far more honest than all the “fascist” rhetoric that was tossed around during Bush’s administration”
Not really, considering that Bush’s legal team believed he could suspend the Bill of Rights based on his C-in-C powers.
But even still, unless you can point to the DNC passing a resolution to call Bush a fascist- and you can’t- it’s a pretty false equivalence. All the “fascist” talk was from loony-left-wing bloggers (like me).
May 13th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Then we can finally tag them for the joke they’ve become;
The Aristocrats!
Let me hear your balalaikas ringing out,
Come and keep your comrade warm
You don’t know how lucky you are, boys
Back in the U.S.S.R.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
You know, I agree that the Republican Party is crazy, but this “it’s worth observing that the lack of democracy was a substantial problem in the USSR, more so than the socialism.” is not true at all.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Why not Communist Satan Evil Party if they’re not going to use their opponents’ actual name?
May 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
the cost of issuing treasuries just keeps going up (as it has been of late) . . .
Yes, the 10-year is all the way up to 3.17%. Scary times.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“What’s BOAC, Daddy?”
British Overseas Airways Corporation – during the war years it was Britain’s state-owned airline which was split in 1946 to form the short-haul BEA (British European Airways) and the long-haul BOAC. Eventually they were merged into British Airways.
There is a big difference between social democratic parties (a bunch of capitalist lapdogs) and democratic socialist parties (true representatives of the working class).
May 13th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
This is pure bullshit. Who cares what they decide to call us? They already insist on calling us the “Democrat party”.
Why not come up with a new name for the Republican Party? I’ve always felt that we should avoid using the term GOP because we certainly don’t want to refer to our opponents as “Grand”. Just using that title alone gives them an advantage.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
If the GOP wants to rebrand their opponents as the “Democrat Socialist Party”, then a rebranding of the GOP is needed. Fortunately, it’s easy to be simultaneously accurate and uncomplimentary given their policies and core supporters:
- Business Republic Party
- Confederate Republicans
- Grand Oligarchs’ Party (prolly too high-brow)
- Republican Church/Tax Party (truth and mis-representation, together!)
May 14th, 2009 at 4:33 am
You never see a “Democrat Socialist” party anywhere in the world
Here in Germany we used to have a party called PDS, Party of Democratic Socialism, which has now been absorbed into the general left-wing party.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:35 am
CMHolm,
You left out the new name that the Republicans wanted to give themselves:
God’s own Party, or, for you Arabic speakers Hezbollah
May 14th, 2009 at 9:50 am
The obvious thing is to call it the Social Democratic party. And the US is not a “center-right country”. The US has politically incompetent people on the left.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Fox News anchors will probably get a memo enforcing the new terminology, at least for a while; just look at the idiotic “homicide bomber” thing a few years back.
Re the breakup of the Soviet bloc, it’s interesting that most of the people rejecting Soviet puppet governments from the inside (e.g., the “brave Hungarian freedom fighters”) would have been pulled up before HUAC in a New York second if they’d been in the U.S. In East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, and Czechoslovakia 1967–what was the first order of business for the resistance? To form workers’ committees in the factories and push for genuine socialism (i.e., actual worker control of production). Everything they did was in keeping with the kinds of left-communism that dismissed the Soviet system as state capitalist.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
[...] part of the Democratic party and a constituency that goes underrepresented. Matt Yglesias makes a good point that socialists have legitimate political parties all over Europe. Our political discourse could [...]