As I've been squeaking about elsewhere in the DU, the tired old "socialism" vs "capitalism" is being hawked here by Gingrich. Our response should be to actually "own" the economic mantle by pointing out that Democrats, for almost a century, have been a whole lot better at building a democratic infrastructure which catalyzes a "people's economy."

Democrats are FOR free enterprise, but to ensure that every American can participate in that freedom and economic empowerment, we build the most effective and democratic INFRASTRUCTURE. That is: a progressive tax, raising minimum wage, the ACA, environmental justice, consumer protection, the Voting Rights Act, net neutrality, etc.

In other words, I'm proposing that we reframe the debate. It's not A vs B. It's A (infrastructure) supporting B (a people's economy).

Now for a soundbite.... any ideas?

Last edited Tue Jan 2, 2018, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)

No, but I got memes, baby.

You might also see this about some good news: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10048445
and http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/brownstein-millennials-largest-voter-group-baby-boomers/index.html

Have you noticed that in your mind:

Socialism = citizen-friendly infrastructure
Democracy = Capitalism

..... but not in mind of the public. Language has evolved. It's frustrating, but getting stuck on old terms is like the librarian insisting that everyone stop saying "there's a disconnect" and return to "disconnection." (And believe me, that drives me bonkers).

Most people in the US associate "democracy" with elections and "socialism" with dictatorship. I know it's not fair and I know that democratic socialists in Europe consider it a form of modified capitalism. But we are losing momentum if we get stuck in a bog with terms that turn people off in this country.

Why not simply use different terms for the same thing? Maybe we can make some actual progress. My vote is to expand the concept of infrastructure (which all Americans agree is important) so that it embraces all the things that democratic socialism is supposed to embrace: an operating system to ensure a people's economy, not an economy for the the 1%.

Especially since your guess about it just isn't true.

You've got some good ideas, perhaps -- but I totally reject your premise, that we have to sneak up on people and trick them.

MY point, which you choose to ignore even though I provided some documentation (ETA: I'd intended to post this link in my post but posted another accidentally: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10048445 ) -- is that there's no NEED to either shy away from the word or redefine it, or in your case, expand its reach. Socialism is becoming more and more acceptable, even preferable in some voters' minds (i.e., Millennials).

BTW, to me, redefining infrastructure to include the economy is a very far -- and unnecessary -- stretch. Except to say that spending on infrastructure usually increases jobs which usually helps the economy. But then the job creation is done (something they failed to note about the Dakota Access Pipeline, quite purposefully, I'm sure).

No, I think the only person stuck in a bog is you.

...but there is a huge number of non-millenials who are suffering from confusion about what government is actually for.

And, no, I never included the economy in the infrastructure. I said the infrastructure, if designed well, can support a people's economy. It can be catalytic. They are separate things. One enables the other. The US Constitution is at the very center of our democratic infrastructure of court houses, laws, internet, public transportation, schools.... Good, useful stuff which the general public can get behind.

And it's not "tricking" anyone by being more clear in how we envision things. My whole concern is that Republicans and their spin machine (Fox, talk radio, Russian trolls) will jump on, and gaslight the hell out of the word "socialism," but they cannot touch "infrastructure." It's actually muddying things (tricking people) by beating the drums for a word that simply hasn't worked for a century.

I voted for Bernie in the primaries for his underlying vision, not his labels. I say use the practical term "infrastructure" and expand it. Bring the public into a dialogue about what it can do to enable a democratic economy.

Go crawl back under the rock you came from.

We're the party of Justice and we're gonna kick your corrupt ass down the street.

Will a large chunk of America buy it? They have in the past.

And rightfully so.

not now.

The republican albatross is that tax bill that they just rammed through. We just need to field candidates that are appealing to their local voters and get people registered to vote.

And I think it would be good for Democrats not to be defensive about being called "socialists." "Social" means us. Social rights such as to education, housing, subsistence, health care, may be considered to be "socialist." If so, socialism isn't bad at all, and a coalition promoting it can easily win.

Telling them exactly what they don't want to hear. That's courage there.

Even Trumphumpers understand it's a necessity and it's definitely socialism.

Fox Viewers probably vote about 90% Republican or Libertarian. So saying this stuff to the sheep...well is just saying it to the sheep. Trying to tell people who really are not seeing incomes rise, who are seeing healthcare costs rising, who are not going to see any significant tax decreases.

Oh and if the the orange turd starts another war...well I don't think the people of this country want to see another war.

and did quite well with that last year- and should continue to do well this year.

Yes, threaten Social Security and Medicare--those nasty socialist programs--and even Fox News watchers, mostly white seniors and their families will walk away from the Republicans. Remember the healthcare protests, the Tea Party's anti-Big Government posters:

Get your hands off my SS & Medicare

LOL. Excuse me. We're talking government-run programs here.

That being said, I've seen several articles beyond the Eye of the Newt's ravings that the Dems tsunami could turn into a GOP opportunity. That will only happen if Dems lose their energy/enthusiasm, become complacent and/or run candidates not suitable to whatever district their running in. That's what the Republicans really hope: that Democrats screw this up somehow. Because at the moment all indicators are pointing to a bloodbath in November.

And they're sweating. Buckets.

He and his ilk always talk as if we had been a Warsaw Pact member.

But then, these days they’re working so hard to turn us into a Russian client state, so they get confused as to who was on what side.

1. "Socialism" doesn't carry NEAR the stigma it once did -- in actual fact, a lot of people are quite favorable on it -- esp. Millennials, and speaking of which:

2. Millennials love it, and Millennials are the largest voting block we have right now.
Millennials to pass baby boomers as largest voter-eligible age group, and what it means
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/brownstein-millennials-largest-voter-group-baby-boomers/index.html

...in cahoots with the corporate media.

Y'all remember the commies, the russians, socialist government rant most rethugs have made since what, the turn of the century (early 1900's), right?

So Newt is saying people won't vote for socialists. You know cause a socialist is a communist thing. And dems normally try to argue they are different. Socialist are not communist and socialist programs actually work, etc etc. But rethugs have none of it. Socialism = Communism. And we are Americans and are capitalists. Commies are the enemy. Which is why Russia and US were never best pals.

Gotta love the irony of Newt's cry. My question. If socialism is so bad, why did his party need russian help to win elections? And why has the gop all of a sudden fallen head over heals mad love crush with russia these days?

Even in The Shape of Water there russian spies.

Newt has always been a real piece of crap human being. Read about what he was like when he was younger! Now he's just a "brand" that cable TV has on, getting his opinion which is worth a pound of piss. I worked with him once on a conference interview. He was as big an asswipe as I suspected.

Sooner or later, the cutting of regulations and consumer protections will have a negative effect. The GOP always pushes things too far. Unfortunately real people, and not corporations, will have to suffer and get hurt before we see a shift back to why we as a society need regulations and enforcement to survive and prosper.

Back in your hole asswipe.

I haven't had a raise in 10 years. Go fuck yourself Newt.