As regulars of Black Ink may have noticed, I’m fairly obsessed with the transparent attempt by President Trump and his minions to attach the word “socialist” to every Democrat and the Dem Party in general.
There are a few Democrats who identify themselves that way. This includes, most prominently, Bernie Sanders (who technically, in some weird sense, doesn’t consider himself a member of the Democratic Party, even as he seeks its presidential nomination for the second time. Sanders calls himself a “democratic socialist,” but doesn’t run for office under that label on the ballot and has generally run for Congress as an “independent”).
Anyway, Trump refers now to many, most and perhaps all Democrats as “socialists” and their party as the “socialist Democrats.” I call this erroneous, rude, bullying and obnoxious. In my opinion, any Democrat who wants to refer to Trump as a “fascist” or the leader of the Fascist Republican Party would be justified in so doing as a matter of turnabout. I doubt they will, but it would be fun to watch him complain that they should not be allowed to call him by a term that he hasn’t embraced himself, even though it arguably applies.
Anyway, today I’m passing along a “The Point” column by CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza and Jamie Ehrlich; it raises the question of why Trump is working so hard to append the S-word to the name of the D-Party.
Cillizza and Ehrlich describe Individual One as “master brander Donald Trump.” They mean the b-word almost literally in the cattle sense, where a steer’s donor burns a brand onto the butt of those animals he owns. Lying Hillary. Pocahontas. Sleepy Joe. Trump assigns them all brands designed to make them unappealing, and, I guess, it works for him politically in some sad, sorry Trumpian sense.
If I’d pulled that crap when I was a kid, my mom would have grounded me until I figured out how obnoxious it was. I wasn’t even allowed to call people fat who actually were overweight. But Trump assigns derogatory nicknames that aren’t even rooted in real-world pounds and ounces.
Anyway, back to The Point. Cillizza and Ehrlich argue that the Republican base hates and fears “socialism,” and froths at the mouth at the idea that the Dems are the party that favors it.
Trump only has 40 percent of Americans who can stand the sight or sound of him. He needs them at a fever pitch so they will all turn out while he figures out some way to tamp down turnout among the 50-some percent who disapprove of the way he’s handling his job as president.
And he hopes that within that 50-some there might be enough who will be turned off by the idea that the alternative to four more year of Trumpism would be socialism. (Don’t mention here my previous point that several of the most beloved U.S. programs, like Social Security and Medicare, could easily be described as mild forms of “socialism.” They’re fine programs. Just don’t call them that. And change the name of that first to “American Security.”)
Read the whole Cillizza/Ehrlich analysis of Trump’s obsession with the S-word here. The column concludes thusly:
You getting it now? If the choice in 2020 is between Trump and a Democrat, he likely loses. If it’s between Trump and a Democrat-who-is-really-a-Socialist, he has a hell of a lot better chance at a 2nd term,
The Point: There’s no positive message that gets Trump re-elected in 2020. (No, not even the economy.) Which is why he and his side are trying so hard to sell the socialism story on Democrats.