I wrote this editorial that was published in the Newnan-Times Herald:
I think I’ve read the word ‘socialist’ a hundred times on this editorial page. Not once have I seen the word used in a context that gives the faintest clue the writer understands what the word means.
Here’s a quote from a once popular book, the dictionary: “Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
Notice the definition did not include, “Any policy a Liberal might endorse.”
Socialism is about collectivizing the means of production. For those who have used this word to describe the President but have never read a socialist or communist author, that means the government, or just the working class as a whole, would wrest property and capital from the few in a country who own it. That would mean seizing factories, business, bank accounts, whole banks, and land to use them in a collective, command and control economy to evenly distribute goods amongst society as a whole.
So, until someone in the Democratic Party starts talking about seizing our economy as a whole to be run by the government and distributing the goods equally, calling Liberals, or the president, ‘socialists’ only shows how disingenuous and childish the Right’s criticisms have become.
If you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe this guy: “The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist…But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of what a socialist is, no, he’s not a socialist.” That’s from one of the only consistent members of the GOP, Ron Paul, speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
I think the Tea Baggers would get more use out of a pocket dictionary than a pocket Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a given week, about 3 or 4 of the editorials published in my local paper at least infer that the current presidential administration is leading our nation to "socialism". It's usually pretty obvious that the only places they have ever heard this word used is on conservative talk radio. I can infer this because they always use the word incorrectly.
These people seem to think anything the government has a hand in is some giant step towards socialism. If the government bars by law the participation of any and every private entity in the production and distribution of some good or service, that's socialism, or at least deserves the label. In order for our country to be "heading towards socialism", our government would have to be centralizing every single aspect of our economy. Anyone with half a brain knows that's not happening. Those who say it is are misinformed or disingenuous.
I wrote the editorial above to give my towns folk a working definition of the word and to see if my local paper would print the word, "Tea Baggers". I laughed my ass off when I saw it!
