New definitions of socialism

In the 1980s and '90s, conservatives who wanted to take a shot at a political opponent called him a "liberal." At the time, this was an effective tool to demean individuals and proposals they didn't support.

But times change. "Liberal" no longer has the effect that it had when uttered by Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich. Today, with an African-American Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, "liberal" ain't so bad.

So, conservatives have found they must take the next demagogical step. Today, the trendy insult is to call somebody a "socialist." The word carries a lot heavier baggage than "liberal." For many, it conjures images of the bushy-bearded 19th century philosopher Karl Marx and bleak scenes from the Soviet Union.

But the definition of "socialist" apparently has changed from its original meaning. These, for example, appear to be the primary definitions of the word as it is used in America today:

* Any program or proposal in which the federal government plays any role whatsoever.

* Any program or proposal that is not embraced by conservatives' corporate campaign contributors.

* Any proposal by a Democrat.

As you can see, "socialist" can apply to just about anything in the modern political arena. This makes it an effective epithet, but its use is also fraught with hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

First of all, most serious programs and proposals that emerge from the Democratic side of the aisle are not "socialist" at all. In fact, to the dismay of many true liberals, most proposals heralded by the Democratic leadership in Washington barely make the cut as being "left of center."

Socialism, as defined by Webster's, is a political theory or system "advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." In essence, socialism is the opposite of capitalism, which advocates private "ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Over the past 100 years or so, what has emerged in the United States, as well as many other Western countries, is a capitalist system fettered by government rules, regulations and taxes. In most cases, what Republicans and Democrats fight over are the extent of those rules, regulations and taxes. Almost never do they debate the merits of capitalism vs. socialism.

The most recent example is health care reform. The reform bills in the House and Senate have a decidedly capitalist foundation, keeping the private insurers firmly in the driver's seat, while imposing rules, regulations and fees with the goal of expanding the number of Americans who have health insurance.

A genuinely socialist health care reform proposal, the so-called single-payer system, has few proponents on Capitol Hill, and the Obama administration has never embraced it. And yet, the health reform bill is routinely described as "socialist."

Republican state Assemblyman Richard McArthur of Las Vegas recently took issue with a Review-Journal reporter. The reporter wrote that McArthur had described President Obama as a "socialist," and the reporter characterized this as "name-calling."

In a letter to the editor, McArthur contended this was not name-calling at all, because "socialism is an economic system, just as capitalism is." This is true as far as it goes, but McArthur goes on to say: "What I said was that most of us realize that President Obama is a socialist. So if we understand that, then nothing he is doing should surprise us. This is not a derogatory statement but a statement of his Marxist/socialist belief system."

The problem with McArthur's logic is that it's based on fiction. Most of us don't "realize that President Obama is a socialist." Most of us don't believe Obama has a "Marxist/socialist belief system."

Not for a second do I believe this is a case of McArthur not understanding what socialism is. In fact, he says on his campaign Web site that he earned a degree in economics from the University of California, Davis. Rather, McArthur is employing the word as a way to draw an extreme contrast between his views and those of the president.

Interestingly, the assemblyman has dedicated much of his life to working in government. He served in the Air Force and the FBI, retiring from the latter with what surely is a very comfortable government pension. Life in America doesn't get much more socialist than that.

There's another bit of rank hypocrisy associated with conservatives who cry "socialism." Despite their professed abhorrence of government involvement in economic affairs, most conservative politicians are vocal supporters of Social Security, Medicare and the Veterans Administration medical system. These huge programs are probably the most socialistic aspects of American governance.

So, allow me to make an appeal to conservative rhetoricians: If a politician is clearly not a socialist, don't call him a socialist. If a policy proposal is clearly not socialistic, don't call it socialistic.

Here's the deal I will offer in return: If you're not really a "right-wing kook," I won't accuse you of being one. And if your proposal is not really "a big, fat smooch on the behind of big business," I won't say that it is.

Geoff Schumacher (gschumacher@reviewjournal.com) is the Review-Journal's director of community publications. His column appears Friday.