right demonizing liberals has made us afraid to. Funny how we don't like conservative ideas and say so, but conservatives still proudly call themselves that, even if they aren't really very conservative, as in all out white-wing wackjobs.

so you should also conclude that we mustn’t run as liberals either.

I never heard of the Cuban dictatorship being called "liberal."

we must identify our differences in policy support, why not distinguish ourselves as moderate or centrist liberals, left to center liberals, and progressive liberals?
Personally I self-identify as an always liberal and a life-long Democratic Party member.

how voting groups that are consistent Republican voters perceive us?

throw away a chance for their votes because of a pointless insistence on the word "socialism" or "socialist."

You wrote “Liberals are centrists”. That’s incorrect.

Centrists are Centrist. Liberals are to the left. In addition, all of Senator Sanders policies are in the left/liberal tradition.

None of his policies are socialist, they are things liberals have argued for for many years.

This is why I disagree with the OP. Bernie’s policies aren’t socialist. He is in the liberal tradition of FDR.

While said policies have become identified with "liberalism," the ideas largely originated with socialists and socialist parties. That was a long time ago, so many people have lost track of it.

I'm not sure how to give you a decent answer without being a little tedious, so apologies in advance for that.

There are multiple visions of "socialism," but the theme that unites most of them is the idea of democratic ("social" ) control over resources, production, and distribution. In the early to mid 20th century, reform-minded socialists (as opposed to "revolutionary" socialists) operating within liberal democracies took the approach of pushing for expanded public goods and services, and certain kinds of regulation (mainly labor-market regulation, e.g. minimum wages, a 40 hour work week, etc.). A fair amount of the socialist reforms did come to pass in the U.S. and Europe. In some European countries, the legislative champions were explicitly socialist parties. U.S. politics were a little different. Norman Thomas (the leader of the Socialist Party of America during the time frame in question) said "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program." Well, not "every fragment" was adopted. However, many of the policies were taken up and passed by the Democratic party (under the name of "liberalism" ). But for the most part, the ideas came from socialists. And the policies conform to socialist theory, in the sense that they do represent (partial) democratic control of economic matters. Sanders' policies are mostly a continuation/expansion of public provision (e.g. education and health care) and regulation (e.g. higher minimum wages). When layered on top of a market economy based on private property (capitalism), these policies don't produce a "socialist" political economy - the result is commonly called "social democracy" - but the policies are both socialist in character and in origin.

Hope that helps.

On the few occasions I've engaged with people online about this (not necessarily DU), silence or snark is the most common reaction. I don't know that we've ever spoken directly, but my impression of you is that you're an aggressive debater, but you stick to the facts and have an open mind. I very much appreciate the civil exchange.

Liberal here means a person is left of center on the political spectrum. Here, liberals are most certainly not, by definition, centrists.

The red scare is over.

not socialists.

There's a difference that Bernie keeps trying to blur.

southern males, nazis, highly religious voters etc.

We should run as Republicans. Then we could really appeal to Republican voters.

And it isn't over for people who fled from Venezuela.

And fight for their own freedom...and quit expecting the US to spend treasure and shed blood for them...

They aren't asking the US to spend treasure and shed blood for them.

They're just leery of politicians in the US who use the word "socialist" to describe policies they want to carry out here.

Last edited Sat Jun 22, 2019, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

America, as well as Chinese Americans are leery of a perceived left-ward socialistic shift in the Democratic Party.

Many younger generation voters have split with their parent’s affinity for the Republican Party and voted for Democrats in the midterm.

We need to keep them aboard.

Is socialism a dirty word to constituencies named in the OP, those I mention, and to some independents and swing voters? Yes.

India's economy was driven into the ground by socialists like Nehru until 1992 when it was opened up and India has prospered since then.

Take Cuban-Americans.

The earlier, hard-right exiles - like our teaneck friends - saw red everywhere.

But as they get older, they are being replaced by a much more moderate - and pragmatic - younger generation.

Nixon and Reagan coasted with 70%+ of the Cuban-American vote. Cheeto got 54% of Florida's Cuban vote - but I doubt he'll get even 50% this year.

And as far as Eastern Europeans, Cheeto's lackey relationship to Putin is no doubt going to be a deal-breaker for many. To say nothing of Ukranian-Americans.

pointlessly decide to call ourselves socialists or our preferred system socialism when there are several other good terms that wouldn't associate us with the Cuban or Venezuelan or Soviet regimes.

I wish Bernie would not call himself a 'democratic socialist' - all the more so because he's actually a social democrat.

It's a big difference, and his failure to see that will probably cost him any real chance at the nomination - which he would've otherwise had.

and Democratic socialists -- who are socialists.

He doesn't seem to get this -- or, at least, many of his supporters don't.

Democratic socialist (Salvador Allende; he meant well but attempted a state takeover of the economy and failed):



Social democrat (Olof Palme; had a much more balanced approach with strategic nationalizations, won four elections):

They will and have already called even Biden a socialist. They call every position that’s not fascist socialist.

We shouldn’t worry about that term. Sanders is the only one who identifies with it and he’s not going to win.

Democrats tend to miss the forest for the tree sometimes - an impediment our more binary-minded in the GOPee suffer much less often.

For them, greed is good; and red should be dead.

that plays into their attempted branding of us and does not accurately describe our policies.

as far as I know, only Sanders is using the term. And he won’t be the nominee. Is there any other prominent Democrat claiming to be a socialist?

all the other Democrats, because he's claiming that the policies he supports -- which are also supported by most other Democrats -- are socialist policies.

They aren't. They're just good, responsive government.

Democrats are looking to make inroads with Florida Latinos as President Trump prepares to launch an aggressive effort to court the state’s fastest-growing voter bloc.

Eager to avoid a repeat of 2018, when two Trump allies edged out Democrats in the state’s Senate and gubernatorial contests, Democrats are wading into Florida’s Hispanic communities earlier this time around, mobilizing dozens of organizers in the Sunshine State and fine tuning Spanish-language outreach.

And on Friday, more than half a dozen Democratic presidential hopefuls gathered at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ (NALEO) annual conference in Miami, where they pitched themselves to Latino leaders in voter-heavy South Florida.

“For us, we have to seize opportunities like the one that several of our candidates did today,” said Christian Ulvert, a Democratic consultant who ran Spanish-language media for Andrew Gillum’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/449789-democrats-target-florida-hispanics-in-2020

Or Cuban and Venezuelan?

If they're Americans, then they should be concerned with what is currently happening here in America...if that American citizenship means so little to them...then perhaps they should seek the help of Erik Prince and others like him to "free" their home countries!!!

And maybe they should all be reminded of the oath they took when they became US citizens:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Why would you expect immigrants to be any different?

Part of the reason for the R's appeal among people who fled socialist dictatorships has been the R's strong denunciation of socialists. Well, the Dems aren't socialists so we shouldn't try to promote that label -- even Bernie shouldn't, since he's running as a Democrat.