Short-ish rant, this week. I’m struck by the apparent notion that a variety of things that would benefit the populace at large, or at least large chunks of it, are all “socialism.” At least, so sayeth our esteemed Senate Majority Leader.
According to him, reversing gerrymandering would be “socialism.” You know, undoing the damage done by a horde of Republican state legislatures, in a number of states. (PA, MD, VA, WI, and I’m sure many, many others.) I’m not saying Democrats don’t do it, or wouldn’t do it… But the D’s certainly seem to be much more on the “up-and-up” with regards to it.
Statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.? Yep. Socialism. Cementing the fact of the citizenship of the three-and-change million residents of Puerto Rico, thus their entitlement (oh, jeez… that word) to being rebuilt in a relatively timely fashion after a devastating hurricane. (I may be being optimistic, but having a bit more federal oversight might alleviate some of the political corruption down there, too…) And I’m sure the residents of D.C. would like some voting representation, given that they’re taxpayers, and all. Seems there was a war once, where that notion played a part. (Oh, and let’s not look too hard at the fact that P.R. statehood was a plank in the 2016 Republican platform, and was supported by Reagan and both Bushes… But now it’s socialism.)
Medicare for All? Socialism. (I’ll grant that, depending on how it’s implemented, it’s possibly at least partly socialism…) But providing healthcare to all of our citizens, as does every other industrialized nation on the planet is somehow “bad” because… reasons.
Not asking for citizenship on the census? Socialism. Never mind that it’s not the purpose of the census to determine such things. (The census determines how many people live here, and where, as its main goal–for determining representation in the House. All the other data they collect? They don’t really need it, when it’s all said and done)
None of that, of course, is inherently Socialism. (Socialism is, of course, where “the proletariat seizes the means of production from the bourgeoisie.” I would accept “the nationalizing of industries” as an answer.) Are they, maybe, social? Well, yeah. Lots of things are “social,” without being “socialism.”
And the false equivalency of “Nazis” with “Socialists,” since “it was the National Socialist Party, and it has it in the name!” can stop right now. The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea is neither the people’s, nor is it a Democracy or a Republic. Even though it says so, right in the name. (One of the first massacres the Nazis perpetrated was driving out all of the Socialists, let us not forget…)
Yes, they are “concentration camps” along the border. Almost by definition. Don’t like them being called that? How about disband the camps. Stop detaining people in them. Treat people, I dunno… Humanely?
And “Nationalist” does most definitely not equal “Patriot.” A better equivalency these days would be “racist,” or even “White Supremacist.” Those aren’t perfect definitions, no… but they’ll do for starters.
I was looking at the calendar a bit ago, and I realized that the next day I’m scheduled to post would be the Fourth of July… I’m going to skip that one, and will be back on the 18th, assuming we’re all still here. Happy Independence Day! May it be full of friends, fireworks, and good food. I’ll talk to y’all in a month!