“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation’s foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message, at the recently concluded Republican Governors Association conference. “They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”
One of the ways he recommended was to avoid the use of “Capitalism” and to substitute it with ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market.’ I’ve admired Luntz and have followed him when he appears on Fox News especially when focus groups are presented–usually on Sean Hannity’s show. These episodes are very informative, enjoyable and interesting most of the time–but I have to disagree with him on this point. However, he has already been chastised by Rush Limbaugh for dumbing down the conservative message for a movement that was “about disbanded.”
In my opinion this is the moral equivalence of using social justice instead of socialism because the former sounded better to the third-party audience. Basically, I feel that it is copping out of one’s own belief system. In the rest of the world socialists never abandoned their title and they are never embarrassed to represent themselves as who they are and what they are against. Only in America do they themselves distort what they are by being named for something else: to throw off the scent like liberals becoming progressives.
The basic tenet of socialism is that capitalism is bad and evil and that they, the socialists will put an end to it by resisting, opposing and eventually changing the latter by either evolution or revolution. Since the occupy wall street (OWS) crowd are against capitalism represented by Wall Street, they are socialist revolutionaries and those who lend verbal, moral and material support are socialists–you know who they are–the president, Democrats, Moveon.org and the participating Unions.
Most of us have an idea what socialism and its policies are and daily we are seeing them being implemented which are anti-free market and enterprise. A command economy with central planning is at the core of their belief and I have personally seen its implementation and the detrimental effects it had on my native country. I don’t want this to befall on America where I have elected to live. People who are born and have lived here all or most of their lives have enjoyed the fruits of a capitalist society albeit with certain modifications and some restrictions, but I don’t want to see this whole system being uprooted or even choked to death by excessive and unjustifiable regulations from a overgrowing and intrusive government–which I have seen before. A majority of Americans cannot even imagine let alone experience hardships imposed by a command economy which can destroy nations. There are examples abound.
Are names important, I think they are, but what they represent are more important since names give it a definition which can be all-encompassing as to its essence. To quote Gertrude Stein “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose” means “things are what they are,” a statement of the law of identity,
I find it even more poignant in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, 1600:which represents another side of the same coin, lending support to Luntz’s point.
Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
It means, what matters is what something is, not what it is called.
But, to me I still like to call it “Rose.”