Thread: The Controversy over the 'Socialist' Label

The Controversy over the 'Socialist' Label

Posted by Bobby Eberle
May 21, 2009 at 7:27 am

On Wednesday, in a special meeting called by members of the Republican National Committee (RNC), a resolution was passed which calls for the Democrats to turn away from their socialist practices.

The resolution's wording was changed at the meeting primarily at the urging of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Other committee members voiced objection to the original language as well, and thus, a compromise was forged. So, what was the hubbub all about and why were RNC members fearful of using the word "socialist?"


As noted in the Associated Press story on GOPUSA, "Republicans on Wednesday abandoned an effort to label their opponents the 'Democrat Socialist Party,' ending a fight within the GOP ranks that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice."

The initial name-changing resolution had drawn criticism from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Florida GOP Chairman James Greer called the idea "stupid" and Colorado Chairman Dick Wadhams called it "absurd." They said it made Republicans look petty during a troubling time for the nation.

The Democratic National Committee said the proposal reflected a political party so devoid of ideas that it was resorting to "name calling" and "petty politics."

Supporters dismissed the criticism Wednesday and said the publicity generated by the proposal was good for the GOP.

I really don't understand what the problem is here. As noted in The Hill, the original language of a portion of the resolution was as follows:

Resolved, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the Democratic Party to be truthful and honest with the American people by acknowledging that they have evolved from a party of tax and spend to a party of tax and nationalize and, therefore, should agree to rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party.

Does that sound controversial to you?

Here is the new wording for that portion of the resolution:

Resolved, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the American people to urge the President, the Congress and the Democratic Party to remember what made our country great and to stop pushing our country towards socialism and governmental control.

The Hill notes that "two paragraphs accusing Democrats of 'proposing, passing and implementing socialist programs' and 'restructuring American society along socialist ideals' stayed in the resolution, but the final language was altered in committee."

So, the new resolution was deemed controversial but the new wording isn't. As noted by the AP story, "Steele said he was pleased the measure focused on 'the Democrats' policies and their destructive effects on America's economic engine, rather than attempting to rename our opponents.'"

On the flip side, supporters of the original language such as Indiana committeeman James Bopp said, "It has generated the debate we had hoped for. ... It was an effort to educate the American people, and it was successful."

Here's how I see it. First of all, there is not much difference in the two versions that should have warranted all the fear and dread from Steele and other members of the committee. Second of all, in order to get people and the media to listen, you first have to get their attention.

In an April 8 memo to RNC members, Steele said, "I believe these proposed resolutions will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans."

The media will always try to mischaracterize Republicans. The point is that the original language was a clever way to get the Democrats to acknowledge the truth. The resolution did NOT call for the Republican Party to change the name of the Democrats... it called for the Democrats to change their own name based on their practices. Very clever.

The new wording is just watered down, and only addresses the "move toward" socialism. Question... how much more do the Democrats have to "push our country towards socialism and governmental control" before it actually gets there and the party takes a stand? Obama and the Democrats are talking control of banks, taking control of the auto industry, seeking to take control of health care, seeking to take control of energy, and on and on! Does that seem like a "push" to you? It's a full-blown assault on our freedoms.

Any RNC official who couldn't deal with the feared media scrutiny from the original language has no business in communications. If the media tried to label the resolution as silly, the RNC spokesperson simply would say, "We are just asking the Democrats to be honest with the American people. They are implementing socialist policies.... policies that take freedom and vital family funds away from hard-working Americans, and they are putting government in control. We are simply asking the Democrats to adopt a name that properly shows America what they are all about."

Altering rhetoric in an attempt to gain more favor from the media is a losing endeavor! Whenever the media embraces a comment or idea, you can bet it's because of one of two reasons: 1) the comment was a gaffe and the media are exploiting it, or 2) the comment was something a Democrat would make, and thus, it is acceptable.

If the Democrats are imposing socialism on America, then asking them to change their name is not controversial or divisive. It's just a common sense request. If RNC officials are truly concerned about being mischaracterized and being targets of the media, they can start by eliminating the jabs that are continually being leveled at the conservative base. Let's embrace the base and core conservative principles, rather than lashing out at them. That will keep down the media scrutiny much more than being fearful of calling the Democrats socialists.

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=1506

It doesn't sound controversial to me! It's been happening for years, according to 6-time Socialist Party Presidential Candidate Norman Matton Thomas; at least that is what has been proposed by an email that had been sent to me long ago:

Norman Matton Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 196 was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1911.

As a candidate for President of the U. S., Norman Thomas said, in a 1944 epoch speech: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism", they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

That quote is verifiable and may be read here: http://m.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/p ... ate=wapart

He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."

As early as 2002, the Democratic Socialist Party was bragging on its website that they had taken over majority rulership of the Democratic Party.

If this is the case, then there have been many Socialists in Democrats clothing taking office. The National Socialist Party of Germany did the same thing... with its politicians promising inclusion of all German citizens in social programs while they were gaining power in that country... and we all know what happened as soon as they gained absolute power in Germany.

I would think that this would be a cause for treason charges against such people. Any such people who have misled U.S. voters and who wants to take away the basic liberties and freedoms of US Citizens should be tried and declared as traitors and exiled to Socialist and Communist countries where they would more readily fit in to such oppressive cultures.