I was originally considering making this a tweet storm, but ultimately, I think Blogger is better for longer statements, and it makes me money, so here we go. That said, don't expect this to be a deep piece of professional journalism; merely an observation, and those who have been paying even a little bit of attention to the way American political rhetoric works should understand what I've been observing.
Ever since Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has begun running as a self-proclaimed socialist, people have challenged him to justify that position. Their challenges are undoubtedly motivated by the snowballing nightmares happening right now in the proudly socialist Venezuela. Sanders tends to answer those critiques by explaining that what he would really rather emulate are "democratic socialist" states in Scandinavia. The political Right's rebuttal to this tends to be that Scandinavian nations aren't socialist; they're "welfare states".
Here's the hypocrisy of that sort of argument: For decades, agitators on the same political Right have been denigrating even the tiniest Left-wing calls for European-style welfare programs as "socialist". During the Cold War, "socialism" became a dirty word used to stigmatize anyone who argued the state should help people out, because that had also been the rallying cry of the Communist Bloc. No less respected figures on the Right than Winston Churchill warned that the election of a new Labour government would lead to inevitably to authoritarian socialism (which looked rather silly when that new Labour government was voted out and Churchill regained the position of Prime Minister). For quite some time in America, it was the challenge of numerous Democrats to explain to their haters how they weren't socialist. Yet it was only a matter of time until the Syndrome Principle took effect; once everything became socialist, nothing was. Now, thanks to constant abuse as an insult having worn the term's impact out, Bernie Sanders has grabbed it up and run with it.
You may note that this is happening at the same time that Donald Trump is gleefully going out of his way to make statements he has to know people will consider bigoted; the likes of which have long been considered among the worst parts of the conservative voter bloc. Between these two populist candidates, it would appear that signaling that you have balls is now the tantamount "virtue"; to be hated and feared for your attitudes is to signal that you're doing something right, but I digress.
The point at hand is that only now, when we finally have a Democrat who accepts the label of socialist, and defines it as support of welfare programs within the framework of liberal democracy, is the Right suddenly changing its tune and proclaiming that they're not the same thing. What we have now is a Democrat who believes socialism is precisely the sort of thing that Republican firebrands have accused it of being for years; the only difference being that he likes it, and detractors are backpedaling on their old message. This is a hypocrisy that deserves to be laughed at.
Does that mean Sanders necessarily has any idea how to run a successful economy. I'd say no. I am quite open in my opposition to his plans for a drastically-risen minimum wage, and I think his refusal to give clear answers about his thoughts on Venezuela are a pile of shame of his own. Granted, it wasn't long before public shame shifted back over to Trump for offering to debate Sanders and then refusing when he accepted. I don't want readers to take this blog as a necessary endorsement of a candidates actual views. However, I certainly will not necessarily endorse the views of their haters, either, and as always, it is clear now that stupidity is a bipartisan flaw.
