I've been having a hard time putting labels on those in the political class over the last few years. I don't know what to call those who rule as oligarchs, are doing government deals with corporations, propose populism but implement socialism, and get campaign funds from globalists who get their money from capitalism at the same time trying to destroy capitalism. What do you call these people? There seems to be a mix of too many governing methods to land on one name or another. This coming election year brings a challenge to voters to dare to define a candidate, not just by party affiliation, but by any historically acceptable definition of political science.
First, what is the benefit of a label? A label tells you what you are getting. Or it is supposed to represent something. It says "Green Giant," or it says "Pepsi," or it says "Quaker" oats. A brand name, a label, can make or break a product or an idea, or, in this case of discussion, a political method of governing.
Somewhere in the earliest days of the 1900's the labels of political parties started going off into some neverland of un-definitions. (I would thank Teddy Roosevelt for this due to the Bull Moose Party and his attempt at defining the Republicans as "Progressives.") Defying definitions, the two party system in America has turned into some mish-mash of confusion, so that now we have to look harder, listen harder, and realize a Democrat is no longer what we thought that meant, nor is a Republican what we used to know as "republicanism." When a political party created a platform for governing, the public used to have a reason to look at that platform and decide if it means something they want in their government. That political party then, for purposes of definition, listed the ingredients of the party in their platform so the public would know what they are getting. A brand, a label, would be enough to know if you would want to align yourself with that political party label. The candidate attached to that label would be recognizable.
If you buy Cole Hahn shoes you know what you are getting. If you vote for a Democrat today, what are you getting? A Communist? And if you vote for a Republican today, what are you getting? Progressivism á la Teddy Roosevelt? Or Conservatism á la Jim Demint?
At the top right of my blog you will see a quote from Norman Thomas, a former Socialist Party candidate for President. He says something quite profound regarding the Democrat Party. In his day, the Democrat Party had adopted Socialism so fully, that he basically saw no reason for a Socialist Party any longer. In other words, Democrat = Socialism.
As time has moved on, the Democrats have indeed adopted a full fledged form of Socialism. However, Democrats need money. And while they have succeeded at bleeding the populist dry (note BO's expansion of the national debt), they have to turn somewhere else for money. The Democrat constituency is made up of a lot of the poor dependent class. Not much money there. Yes, they still suck money from unions, but union memberships over the years have dwindled and there isn't as much money in unions as there used to be to fund the Democrats....or maybe another way of looking at this is the high price of politics has out-paced the union money, so the Democrats have had to go fishing in other places. So where have the Democrats gone? They have tapped into the business sector. And that leads to Fascism. Fascism is government rule over business. What did B. O. do? He had the government buy GM. He has hitched his wagon to a global corporation, i.e. GE. He is using government force to take power over businesses, who better pay up and back him...or else. He is attached at the hip to the Goldman Sachs and Soros wall street crowd. Even Warren Buffet has leaned in his direction. The Fascist model is a pay to play model where the corporation or investment class pays the politician or faces the consequences of government force.
Then, with the brief stage appearance of Van Jones, we had a glimpse of someone in BO's camp who unabashedly says he is a Communist. We also have in his camp global Socialists and rabid Environmentalist Socialists. We know his parents and surrounding friends were / are Communists. Put together the GM / GE Fascism, and the hedge fund gleaners, with the others and what we have in BO is a Socialist Fascist Communist.
Then there is the Republican Party who can't seem to shoot straight. Republicanism is supposed to support states rights and individual liberty, small government, etc. Republicans used to support localism by lower taxation, even if that was by default. The less money squeezed out of the states and persons for central government, the more prosperity would fall back onto the states and persons. That was the idea. Instead, what we have had from Republicans is expansion of Democrat social programs simultaneously with the lowering of taxes causing the country to run smack into more debts. You could call this unfunded liabilities, like No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Bill, or Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans seem to want their cake and eat it, too. Buying the votes of dependents with social programs, but not being able to pay for them is a major flaw in the Republican mindset. The theory is that if you lower taxes on everyone and every business, capitalism thrives and more money flows into the central government coffers. Is that the goal? What is the purpose of government? As long as you are supporting central government social programs you are not a small government, liberty promoting, Republican. Rinos Rejoice!
So, no matter how you look at the two parties, the expansion of the federal, central power of government just goes on unabated. Until finally, no one in the nation has anyone to turn to for small, limited, federal central power. Neither party can say with any authenticity that they are the label for the people, by the people, or of the people. The American public is getting shafted from either direction and definitions no longer hold true. Labels are shams. The mix of definitions has become a toxic soup of Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Environmentalism (now a code word for global socialism), and whatever other ism you want to throw in there.
(Just a quick note on "libertarianism" recommending to legalize drugs and prostitution which taxes those two categories of activities. Basically, more taxes for some immoral behaviors, which isn't any different than Democrats who deem profit as greed and an immoral behavior, wishing to tax it. The Republicans have latched onto various environmental causes and will find taxable activities such as support for land use restrictions, light rail, smart growth, etc. Just saying "libertarianism" is not better than the other two, just another taxation policy.)
So what do you call a politician who is all of the above? Democrat and Republican labels just don't seem to fit anymore. A Socialist Fascist Communist? A Progressive Regressive Politburo? An Environmentalist Fascist Socialist? A Capitalist Fascist Autocrat? Turkeys and Skunks. Might as well be.