Discussions are happening on the issue of whether to use inciteful terminology such as “socialist” when the GOP leadership discusses Obama, and his administration. Mike Volpe, the author of the very site I link to above is often “provocative” in his current events and political assessments, and the title of his blog is usually spot on.
On this issue, though the topic is somewhat edgy, his analysis suggests a more modified tone in handling how to proceed with, or sans labels for our president. He writes:
At the tea parties, I cringed a bit everytime I saw a sign that referred to Obama as a Socialist. That’s because such provocative language will get you noticed, but it also presents an image of an extremist.
Don’t get me wrong. If you are a blogger, or columnist, being provocative is simply good marketing. That’s a way to get noticed. Yet, the RNC is not a bunch of bloggers. The RNC needs to not only appease their base but be able to reach out to those folks sufficiently moderate that they are willing to listen to Republican’s message.
OK.. so when is it appropriate to apply a title to the very thing that is carrying the definition for that title? Do we temper our voices so as not to offend the outlayers who do not understand definitions and reality, yet still might give us a few votes later on? Mr. Volpe certainly draws a distinction between what is “acceptable” for bloggers, presumably opinion writers, and the Republican party, which has a broader responsibility to maintain membership perhaps by not reaching the extremes of “name calling.”
But what can the Republican party do, when the fact remains that between the health care funding (government take over) and a control grab of our financial institutions by the federal government, we are seeing both Fascist, AND Socialist elements? How can a group which draws its very name from the form of government which we presumably had been given by our forefathers (Republican = Rule of Law) concede no better response than to deny the appropriate truths, and pretend we don’t know what to call “that which is not supposed to happen?”
The Republican party faces some very tough choices. YES there will be a few losses in recruitment if certain words are used to describe the policy enactment by our current leadership. But to measure the losses only, puts them at the disadvantaged position which has many true conservatives and originalists seeking to abandon them anyhow. Some folks merely want to see what is right. The underlaying premise that we offend if certain words are used might be somewhat correct, but what if the words mean the truth?
What is the reason SOCIALISM or MARXISM, or FASCISM offends so well? Why do such words inspire such fear in members of both political parties and to many others across the political spectrum? Perhaps because the very labeling with those words suggests an ideological relationship and similarity of governments run by Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini? Perhaps because while ignoring the very basic similarities in the beginning application of government policies, the results have not yet been seen. Perhaps we exist in the perpetual state of insanity where to observe the poor ending of such policy, does not mean we expect similar results from the same applications.
The words which are taken as derisive and insulting merely DESCRIBE through definition, the decision making in its applications. If the Republican party fears using, and educating the public on how to apply the appropriate labels where they are deserved, the elephant no longer is anymore appropriate then the ostrich, or perhaps the cowardly lion.