Talking Economics Without Using the "S" Word
Eric Scheie posting at "Classical Values" asks how do we have a legitimate conversation about socialism — do we have it, do we want it — without sounding like some conspiracy theorist.
Unfortunately (as I have pointed out in several posts), the "s" word is so fraught with problems that it might be too contaminated to use. I worry that "socialist" within five words of "Barack Obama" has become code language for belief in various popular far-right conspiracy theories. The "Obama is a secret Muslim sleeper agent born in Kenya" stuff. After all, who but a secret Muslim sleeper agent born in Kenya would want to impose socialism on the United States?
In theory, "socialism" is still a perfectly legitimate word, but I worry that it is becoming delegitimized. As it is, the responsible critics of Barack Obama’s economic programs are very, very careful not to use the word "socialist," and if they do, it is only to distance themselves from those who call Barack Obama a socialist.
An old adage is "you’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you." Use of a particular word ought to be acceptable if it describes things accurately. I’ve been using the word "socialism" here for a couple months, but only after describing a recent event that, in my mind, continues to push our country in that direction. Eric has this feeling, however, that anytime someone uses the S-word, they get labeled a kook and ignored.
Marginalizing a word is an easy way to avoid debate. I hope this isn’t happening.
Filed under: Culture • Doug • Economics & Taxes
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
It is my opinion, for what it’s worth, that the repeated suggestions that Obama is a socialist DOES marginalize those who suggest it and we tend to just write them off as fringy-, wingnutty-types.
That’s what happens in my circles, typically.
For what it’s worth.
How about, never mind tying it directly to Obama, but just noting that the government is taking over auto companies and financial institutions is … well, something other than free-market capitalism?
As I’ve noted, I use it, not simply declaring it to be so, but providing evidence that we’re scooting towards it, even if the President isn’t a card-carrying one. Is it fringy and wingnutty to observe that such things are indeed happening and that they push us in that direction? (In your circles, of course.)
I think one can reasonably raise concerns about socialism without sounding nutty, but it rarely happens (again, at least as judged by the fellow Americans and voters in my circles).
You want to raise concerns about the gov’t becoming owners of companies? I share those concerns. Raise them reasonably and I’m on your side. Start saying, “SEE?! He’s a socialist intent on destroying America!” and I write you off.
I don’t believe I’m unique in that regards.