If we are going to worry about politically emotional labels, we should be more worried about the movement of our government toward a dictatorship than socialism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This story from USA Today<\/a> got me thinking about the labels applied to politicians and policies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes a headline alone is worth a post. Hard to know whether the befuddled lawmaker or the paper bothering with such blather deserves the attention of our amusement. I think the lack of understanding people have for the meaning of words that seem to generate an emotional reaction is a problem. There is a vast difference between a socialist form of government and a government that takes action in circumstances that offer a public good. Our highway system does not make our government socialist. Our protections that are supposed to assure clean water and healthy foods do not make our government socialist. Our government that organizes a military for our collective protection and taxes us accordingly does not make our government socialist. We would do better to be concerned with a leader who seems to think he is all powerful (a dictator) than to throw the word socialist around as a slight against those who hope that the government will require certain actions for the general good. Try substituting the word empathetic when a collective action you value is described as socialistic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If we are going to worry about politically emotional labels, we should be more worried about the movement of our government toward a dictatorship than socialism. This story from USA Today got me thinking about the labels applied to politicians … Continue reading