Conservative Rhetoric

About 18 months ago, I talked in a meeting about the need for the conservatives to change their rhetoric if they wanted to be successful in the 2008 presidential election (not that I desired this by any stretch of the imagination). I would argue that they were largely unsuccessful in creating a new image for themselves through new rhetoric. Senator McCain's inability to distance himself from the Bush administration is consistently listed among the highest reasons for his defeat.

But the rhetoric is clearly changing now. Whether as a kind of shock reaction after their overwhelming defeat in both the presidential and congressional races, or as a methodical way of reinventing themsleves, conservatives have exchanged the negatively connoted "liberal" with its further-left brother "socialist." A recent article in the NYTimes discussed this phenomenon. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01leibovich.html)

What surprised me about this article is that there was relatively little discussion of the significance of this switch. There was a discussion of how brandishing "socialist" is less potent now than it was in the days of FDR, when the USSR was a serious threat, but no discussion of the significance of the switch from brandishing the left as "liberals" to brandishing them "socialists."

The shift seems of paramount importance in understanding the "center" of the country's political spectrum. I think part of the reason for the shift stems from the fact that brandishing someone a "liberal" has lost its potency. Liberalism is now okay by general standards. Liberalism is a recognized acceptable alternative to the Bush years, which were an extension of Reagan's trickle-down economics - in effect, the anti-socialism. Conservatives, then, have had to turn to what they perceive to be a more loaded word - "socialism." By brandishing socialist they are, however, still attempting to connote Stalinist Sovietism and Maoist China.

It is, of course, ludicrous to suggest that the United States will ever reach anything like Stalinist Russia with its current constitution, but three questions remain: To what extent is what the Obama administration is pursuing socialist policy? To what extent does the American public believe it to be socialism? To what extent does the American public care if it is socialism?

First, we have lived in a semi-socialist country for a long time. Since the progressive movement in the first decade of the 20th century, clear limits have been placed on the many-headed hydra of capitalism (thanks to Marcus Rediker for the metaphor). Once businesses have begun to have limits placed upon them, we have ceased to live in a fully capitalist society. We are then living in a country which, to some extent is socialist. The question, then, lies in the degree to which we are socialist.

Clearly, the Obama administration's push to semi-nationalize the banks represents a much more socialist society than what we have been living in. As does his push for a more graduated income tax. Yet even with these reforms and nationalized healthcare, we would not be to the level of socialism achieved by Western Europe. So social? Yes. Socialist in the sense of downfall of capitalism? Absolutely not!

The last two questions are harder to answer. Sociologists will attempt to answer them now, and historians will attempt to answer them in the near future, but I dare not attempt. Obama is in a grace period. He has been granted a certain amount of room to maneuver the country however he feels fit. Can he push us towards a radically more socialist society permanently? Time will tell.