Dear editor:
Trump and followers say that the Democratic candidates are socialists or communists. Any real socialist or communist would sneer derisively at such an idea. Socialism and communism are not in the Democratic Party imagination.
How do Trump, et al, get this so wrong? Is it just ignorance? Very doubtful — it requires little effort to learn that socialism calls for major economic organizations to be nationalized. Communism would end all privately owned businesses. There is nothing like that in the thoughts of Harris and Walz.
Perhaps it is dishonesty that is behind the name calling. That cannot be ruled out. However, there is a misuse of the word "socialism" in American political culture. What is labelled "socialism" is any attempt to improve the lives of ordinary citizens — think Social Security and Medicare. Those programs, and further extensions by current Democrats, are what are called socialism by Trump.
Tim Walz got it right when he said that one person's socialism is another's being neighborly. That is, what is called socialism is simply caring for our neighbors. Or for others, Republican socialism is Christianity. The Rev. John Forney, speaking for Christianity, said in a recent sermon, "Not only are we talking about freedom from hunger, but the freedom for each woman and man to be fully alive, to reach their full potential. It's about being fed with the freedom to have decent work at a living wage. The freedom to have political agency. The freedom to love whom you love. It's about the freedom to have decent housing in a safe community. The freedom to learn and go as far as your talent and effort will take you. In short, to thrive."
The next time you hear Trump talking about socialism, remember that he is condemning being neighborly, being Christian, being fair.
Merrill Ring
Claremont
Socialism, continued …
Dear editor:
In his September 6 letter ["Do Republicans really know what socialism is?"], Merrill Ring complains about Republicans' "misuse of the word 'socialism.'" He even laughably refers to Tim Walz's claim that socialism is just "being neighborly." Sorry Merrill, that is a very long way from the truth. What we have here is yet another case of assault and battery on the English language.
Socialism, Merrill, is dictatorial government control over the lives of its citizens. You know, like our own government colluding with big tech to stifle people's free speech, or EV mandates, or gasoline vehicle bans, or any one of thousands of other dictatorial restrictions and mandates being pushed by Democrats. Put on all the lipstick you wish, but you'll never dress up that pig known as socialism.
No Merrill, socialism (and communism) exist to empower an elitist ruling class, at the expense of the citizenry overall. Under socialism, the only ones who ever thrive are those in that elitist ruling class. Everyone else suffers, badly, as history has already proven, time and again.
For a nation and its people to thrive, we need free market capitalism, with all of those God-given natural rights documented so eloquently in our Constitution. And Democrats would be the first ones standing up for all of those natural rights if they truly wanted to be neighborly.
And as for communism? It's even worse than socialism.
Douglas Lyon
Claremont
Socialism: it's complicated
Dear editor:
While the letter published in the September 6 Courier ["Do Republicans really know what socialism is?"] makes a strong argument against the notion that Democratic candidates are socialists or communists, it's important to recognize that political discourse often involves exaggeration and the use of loaded terms to influence public opinion. However, dismissing concerns about socialism as mere dishonesty or ignorance overlooks the complex realities of modern politics.
While it is true that traditional socialism and communism advocate for the nationalization of industries and the abolition of private property, these ideologies have evolved over time. In many Western democracies, including the United States, the term "socialism" is often used more loosely to describe policies that expand the role of government in the economy and in citizens' lives. Programs like universal healthcare, free college tuition, and substantial tax increases on the wealthy are seen by some as steps toward a more socialized system, even if they don't fully align with the textbook definitions of socialism or communism.
It's also important to recognize that labeling such policies as "socialist" isn't necessarily dishonest or ignorant. For many conservatives and libertarians, expanding government control over sectors like healthcare or energy is a significant ideological shift that moves closer to socialism. The fear is that such policies could lead to more government overreach, higher taxes, and less economic freedom — concerns that are valid in a democratic society that values debate and differing perspectives.
You also suggest that Trump's use of the term "socialism" is an attack on being neighborly, Christian, or fair. However, one can be compassionate, caring, and supportive of community well-being without endorsing government intervention as the primary solution. Many conservatives believe that private charity, community involvement, and a free market economy can better address societal issues without the inefficiencies and potential pitfalls of expanded government control.
Aaron Peterson
Claremont
― The Lincoln Project
No comments:
Post a Comment