The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Democratic Socialists of America

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Democratic Socialists of America

By W. James Antle, III on 5.20.09 @ 7:05PM

The Republican National Committee passed a resolution decrying the Democrats' "march toward socialism." I don't really have a problem with it -- modern American liberalism really is just a moderate form of democratic socialism, it is becoming less moderate under President Obama, and both the Republican Party and the broader Right have a long, distinguished history of criticizing the Democrats for "creeping socialism."

I'm just glad they didn't adopt a resolution renaming the Democrats the "Democrat Socialist Party." Why? Because there's a fine line between ideological labeling and childish-sounding name-calling, and that proposed resolution seemed to be on that wrong side of that line. Sort of like insisting on calling the Democrats the "Democrat Party" instead of the "Democratic Party."

View all comments (13) | Leave a comment

Mary| 5.20.09 @ 8:44PM

It’s good that good sense prevailed.

This is too good not to share: “Feeling a bit standoffish, Winston?”

This is a great speech, by a man who can marshall all the intellect he needs to, and more.

H/T: The poster Dr. Evil at Hot Air, on the General "another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge" Powell thread.

Mary| 5.20.09 @ 9:30PM

Better make that marshal. And I know you can marshal facts and maybe even discipline, but I'm not so sure you can marshal intellect.

Too lazy to re-word; but did want to correct.

Ran| 5.20.09 @ 11:21PM

"modern American liberalism really is just a moderate form of democratic socialism"

Moderate form? As in less statist or less collectivist in some way? How, precisely, would any modern exemplar of American liberalism be shown to be more libertarian or less collectivist than a typical wanker in Brussels? [Or did I miss the /sarc tag?]

Ran| 5.20.09 @ 11:39PM

I mean, on the one hand it's rather farcical of the RNC to decry Democratic sinestrotropism. And yeah, the tagging does smack of "nya nya!"

But on the other hand, man, the glove fits. Any "moderates" such as Lieberman or Zell Miller can attest. They don't even want Powell or Specter... too ideologically "conservative."

Marc Jeric| 5.21.09 @ 7:34AM

The Democrat Party is much more than socialist. They are turning into real fascists, what with ACORN brownshirts selling worthless mortgages, voting non-existent voters, frightening businesses and banks by violent democtrations. We are now in the state of Germany in the early 1930's. With their huge majorities in Congress they are nationaling banks and car industry, mortgage companies, and are on the way to nationalize oil, gas, and coal industries, then electric utilities.

Marc Jeric| 5.21.09 @ 7:36AM

The Democrat Party is much more than socialist. They are turning into real fascists, what with ACORN brownshirts selling worthless mortgages, voting non-existent voters, frightening businesses and banks by violent demonstrations. We are now in the state of Germany in the early 1930's. With their huge majorities in Congress they are nationalizing banks and car industry, mortgage companies, and are on the way to nationalize oil, gas, and coal industries, then electric utilities.
(correcting spelling errors)

Crusader| 5.21.09 @ 7:58AM

Moderate socialists? Is this like when we were told by these alleged right wing pundits not to worry because da prez was going to govern from the middle? Haha!

And heavens to Betsy we call them Democrat instead of Democratic. Why, that wouldn't be gentlemanly of us. It makes the blue-blood big-tent RINOs squirm.

Who you gonna believe, an editorial or your lyin' eyes? "Moderate socialists" my arse!!!!! If this is moderate I can't wait for "extreme."

stu.b.con| 5.21.09 @ 10:15AM

a rose is a rose is a rose....

Eric Dondero| 5.21.09 @ 11:26AM

Once again, our conservative buddies wussing out.

We libertarians simply refer to the Democrat Party as the national Socialist Party, not simply Democrat Socialists of America.

Murphy| 5.21.09 @ 12:51PM

I hope "conservatives" heed Mr Antle's sensible censure of what seems to any person outside the Fox Newsopias of right wing talk as puerile name-calling.

In point of fact, liberalism is somewhat at odds with socialism in certain basic, unavoidable ways, and there was an intensity of hatred for socialism -- and in particular the Soviet Union's style of totalitarian communism -- held by JFK, RFK, and Jimmy Carter that rivals if not bests Nixon's or Reagan's.

However you may judge who hates commies best, the fundamental difference between liberalism and socialism is this:

Modern liberalism (whether undertaken by Republicans or Democrats) accepts the premise that effective government action can and should expand the political and economic autonomy of people. It is "democratic" in spirit because it rejects the more conservative notion that continuity of customs and institutions should trump expansion of individual liberties.

Naturally, in our chaotic society, each party has claims to different strands of liberalism. Republicans tend to emphasize property rights and certain other civil liberties (2nd amendment rights, for example), while Democrats emphasize other kinds of rights.

Socialism, on the other hand, is very different from the above ideals and ambitions. Socialism sees equality -- material and political -- as the end, as the good.

Liberalism does not see economic equality as something for which government action strives as an end, although it does see excessive disparity as a threat to the social fabric. (By the way, the beginnings of true conservatism in England came about in response to the economic disparities introduced by capitalism.)