That’s not going to come across as very convincing when actual socialists are running for the dem nomination.
Ha! Another internet stranger who is certain he has the answer to a challenging question. I remain unconvinced by internet strangers who are certain, and insistent with their certainty.
I don’t know if my answer is right on this, but it makes sense to me, and it’s been an effective argument with conservatives in my real life. So I think it’s worth talking about. If you’re certain I’m wrong, then that’s fine, but strongly (and arrogantly, IMO) worded certainty from a stranger on the internet is not likely to be convincing to me.
An internet stranger who is sure he has the answer puts down internet strangers who claim to have the answer. I’m just using stuff I managed to retain from several marketing courses, coupled with I’ve observed over the last few elections, but since you’ve managed to convince some conservatives in person…so be it.
The article is pretty poor, IMO. The military is socialist is misleadingly simplistic. The socialist aspects of the military that are identified are more like compensation. The purpose of the military is for defense, and to project force, among other things. To do that, they compensate those who volunteer via various means.
The purpose of the things that are typically negatively characterized as socialist is simply to provide those things - the socialistic aspects are the goal.
These are quite different once you get past surface level comparisons.
I agree with Bone. The military doesn’t allow the sick, disabled, elderly, or out of shape to join in the first place. Other than a highly authoritarian structure, I don’t think it is much of a “socialist” organization.
Point out to people that the Republicans have been beating this drum for a long time. Cite this quote from Harry Truman…“Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is “creeping socialism.” Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.”
I know that resistance to change is a defining characteristic of conservatism, but geeze…
Of course the argument is simplistic! That’s a feature, not a bug. In reality, like most aspects of our government and society, there are aspects of the military that are socialist-ish and aspects that are not.
And this, of course, depends on the meaning of socialist, which varies widely. But if universal health care is socialist, then active military health care is socialist. If universal housing is socialist, then active military housing is socialist.
My point is about making effective arguments in a political context. That means, sometimes, making things simplistic.
I appreciate your input and your opinion, and it’s okay to disagree. I recognize that my argument won’t work on everyone, and I don’t advocate a single argument be used for everyone and in all circumstances. I think my argument could be another tool that might be appropriate in some circumstances.
Your argument might work with individuals because you have their attention and you have their time…and there is always the possibility that they are agreeing with you just to end the conversation. But unless you have slotted time each day to reinforce your message with each of the people you think you have convinced then that message will soon be overwritten by the same media they listen to every day.
This would seem to be an argument for not bothering to try.
Sometimes I try, and sometimes I try different arguments. On the topic of socialism, this one has been by far the most effective for me. YMMV, and that’s fine. What arguments have been most effective on this topic in your personal experience?
The rebupkis embrace (US) socialism every time they fail at anything. Their whole program is to socialize their expenses onto inferiors and privatize the profits they make. After a while the two things become complementary parts of the same thing. I mean what’s the damned use of making money if you can’t make it off the right people, and let your pals slide. They want to ratchet liberty off for themselves piece by piece, and leave an enforced caste system.
That is the alternative being offerred by the right. The left is offering a hybrid socialism that is so reasonable it’s unremarkable.
Is not merely simplistic. The comparison is inaccurate and bad.
The point of the military is not to provide health care, it is just more effective to do so. The purpose of the military is to project force. Health care is part of the compensation package for those who volunteer.
The purpose of things like M4A is to provide healthcare insurance. Equivocating on these things is simplistic, and it’s also a terrible and ineffective argument.
What I am saying it is a little late in the game to be trying to reach individuals. The Democrats should quit reacting to what is already been driven into the skulls of the populace(which, as I said, tends to reinforce the original message), find some simple strong messages of their own that they can unite around, and blanket the nation with them… As it is now, we have more than a dozen complicated individuals putting out more than a dozen complicated messages, and the populace doesn’t have the time or the attention span to go through all that crap. By the time the individual candidates are finished destroying each other’s ideas the only ideas Joe Public is going to remember are the simple(but consistent) ideas the Republicans have been pushing.
The purpose of active military health care is to provide health care to active military members. This is an entirely government run process, and in my experience it was top notch and very effective. If government run health care is socialist, then this is a socialist system. Either way, it works, and it’s an effective argument, IMO, that government run/socialist health care can deliver top notch care.
Is the active duty military unionized? Are the providers for active duty military unionized? I know the VA is unionized and the unionized workers and efficiency are terrible.
Why are you pivoting to the efficacy of government run health care? I’m not talking in any way about quality of service.
Military health care would not exist if not for the need to project force. Isolating this one component of the larger military apparatus to equivocate is pretty terrible tactic, and I would laugh at it if someone were to try and advance that argument. Military health care is not a necessary component of projecting force. It’s just not.
But hey, whatever floats your boat. If you think calling everything socialist is a good way to go, go nuts. I find it more effective to acknowledge that in limited instances, socialized services are a necessary evil but should be closely guarded to avoid expansion.
Why not just dump the term? I mean it is poisoned due to Commie nations calling themselves “Socialist” and of course even the Nazis. Why do the Dems have to identify with being Socialists anyway? How doe it help?
Pivoting? This is my argument. That socialism is not necessarily scary, and that it’s already all around us, in some ways. And that it can be positive and effective, in some circumstances. My argument is about finding examples that demonstrate the cuddliness of socialism. Nice, cuddly, active duty military health care. Nice, cuddly socialism. Sure, there are bad examples. But there are bad examples of the free market as well.
I think the best system is a hybrid, like we already have. And maybe a few aspects of our society could use some socialism to be more effective.
That’s the argument. Not a pivot, but the main thrust. Read the OP of this thread again if you think otherwise.
I think it’s far too late to do that, and one of the main Democratic policies - UHC - is widely acknowledged, around the world, as socialist. So I think the word is here to stay, no matter what. Might as well try to make the best of it.
Why use the term? Yes, UHC is “socialist”, but it’s also good. Why not just call it “good”?