|
Ask
Auntie Pinko
August
23, 2001
Dear Auntie Pinko,
When people accuse voters who support the Democratic Party
of being "communists" or "socialists," are those two labels
considered offensive - or complimentary - by the Democratic
leadership, and why?
Curious in FL
Dear Curious,
While it should be obvious from Auntie Pinko's nom de plume
where I stand on this question, I would hesitate to speak
for "the Democratic leadership" as a whole. I am just one
individual party member and voter, after all.
I suppose, if one is of a nature willing to take offense,
that any epithet flung with the obvious intent to insult will
provide an excuse for umbrage. I once witnessed a woman take
a five-star huff when accused of being a "philanthropist,"
believe it or not. It was clear that she didn't really know
what the word meant. She had heard the term applied to people
like Mr. Mellon, Mr. Rockefeller, and other robber barons,
and associated it with their willingness to allow the end
of becoming rich to justify the thoughtless and inhumane exploitation
of laborers and natural resources.
When it was explained to her what the word really meant -
one whose love of their fellow-humans leads them to acts of
benevolence that promote the general welfare - she was astounded.
She asked "For heaven's sakes, why would anyone apply that
word to those greedy SOB's whose conscience-money foundations
represented more of a belated attempt to buy their way into
heaven than any real charitable impulse? And why on earth
would anyone think that word could be an insult?"
Auntie Pinko is quite struck by the parallels between her
question and yours, Curious. To anyone who is familiar with
the real meanings of the terms "socialism" and "communism,"
it seems quite ridiculous that they could be applied to the
various authoritarian dictatorships that have attempted to
co-opt them in the 20th century. And equally preposterous
that they would ever be considered insulting.
As to any individual Democratic Party leader's willingness
to be so "insulted," it would certainly reflect a good deal
about the state of their own knowledge or ignorance, wouldn't
it? A leader moderately well-read in economics and social
history would understand that "communism" and "socialism"
describe economic and social systems with highly utopic ideals,
intended to further human progress toward civilizations that
ensure equity, justice, and the full participation of all
citizens in the responsibilities and benefits of a society.
One can only assume, therefore, that a leader who regards
these terms as opprobrious epithets is either woefully ignorant
and unread in basic economic theory, or is opposed to the
utopic ideals they express.
I hope that answers your question, Curious, and thank you
for writing to Auntie Pinko!
View Auntie's Archive
Do
you have a question for Auntie Pinko?
Do political discussions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal
at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their
endless rhetoric at you? Or are you a conservative who just
can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness?
Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything! So ask away!
|
