CitizenBBN
01-06-2016, 10:35 PM
Well, the way the national party has gone since Obama's election, I'd say I couldn't explain a difference between them lately either. lol.
I have cringed in the past when Democratic candidates were called "socialists" in campaigns. It was patently untrue to apply that term to Carter or Clinton or Mondale, etc. They were definitely liberal, but not socialist. An American liberal wants to give folks a hand up, but doesn't believe in "from each according to ability, to each according to need." They want to give folks help, give them opportunity, but they still believe in individual liberty and pursuit of happiness.
the difference between what would be a Democrat in the 1960s through 2008 and a conservative was more about HOW to best help people who are down, how to best provide opportunity. Libertarians and conservatives see that road as being through business and capitalism, a liberal or Democrat of that era would likely see the path as having to flow through government or government incentivized action.
But socialists simply believe in "social justice", not individual liberty. They believe in "from each according to ability, to each according to need" and not just the social safety net that came from the Depression and FDR. As Reagan said, he was a FDR Democrat who believed in helping those in need, but not in socialist reallocation of wealth based on some arbitrary government power deciding who deserves what.
And that's Obama, the first true socialist (and I'd argue Communist) President in the US, and he has shifted the national party to the point of being truly indistinguishable from the socialists of Europe.
He and Sanders and Wasserman Sergeant Schultz and their ilk believe in social justice over individual liberty. That is the nexus of socialism, and the nexus of what I believe is fundamentally anti-American since America's entire mission on this Earth is the advancement of individual liberty.
Just thought I'd help Hillary and Wasserman out, b/c as much as I know why politically they didn't answer, I honestly don't think they understand the distinctions that define socialism. I do think Obama knows them, but he knows he's a communist, he's just smart enough to not say it.
I have cringed in the past when Democratic candidates were called "socialists" in campaigns. It was patently untrue to apply that term to Carter or Clinton or Mondale, etc. They were definitely liberal, but not socialist. An American liberal wants to give folks a hand up, but doesn't believe in "from each according to ability, to each according to need." They want to give folks help, give them opportunity, but they still believe in individual liberty and pursuit of happiness.
the difference between what would be a Democrat in the 1960s through 2008 and a conservative was more about HOW to best help people who are down, how to best provide opportunity. Libertarians and conservatives see that road as being through business and capitalism, a liberal or Democrat of that era would likely see the path as having to flow through government or government incentivized action.
But socialists simply believe in "social justice", not individual liberty. They believe in "from each according to ability, to each according to need" and not just the social safety net that came from the Depression and FDR. As Reagan said, he was a FDR Democrat who believed in helping those in need, but not in socialist reallocation of wealth based on some arbitrary government power deciding who deserves what.
And that's Obama, the first true socialist (and I'd argue Communist) President in the US, and he has shifted the national party to the point of being truly indistinguishable from the socialists of Europe.
He and Sanders and Wasserman Sergeant Schultz and their ilk believe in social justice over individual liberty. That is the nexus of socialism, and the nexus of what I believe is fundamentally anti-American since America's entire mission on this Earth is the advancement of individual liberty.
Just thought I'd help Hillary and Wasserman out, b/c as much as I know why politically they didn't answer, I honestly don't think they understand the distinctions that define socialism. I do think Obama knows them, but he knows he's a communist, he's just smart enough to not say it.