It’s official: Democrats and Liberals are Socialists at heart

For all the protest from Liberals and Democrats that they do not favor socialism, the fine folks at Gallup find otherwise.  The results from the latest survey find that the majority of  Liberals and Democrats have a favorable view of socialism.

Because socialism has worked so well everywhere it’s been tried, right?  On a positive note, the results show that Liberals and Democrats hold favorable views of free enterprise and capitalism also.  However this isn’t borne out when discussing economic issues with them, not in my experience anyway.  In fact I can’t think of a Liberal or Democrat who doesn’t disparage free enterprise in some fashion or another.  They persistently begrudge the rich their wealth.  Whether it’s demanding a more heavy tax burden for them, even though it will not have any effect on the deficits.  Or proposing caps on earnings.  Or even profit sharing within a corporation, i.e., reducing executives pay to be spread out among the lower level workers.  I am more inclined to believe Liberals and Democrats gave a positive answer to pollsters because of the public stigma surrounding socialism; in the same way that — despite the recent votes in favor of same-sex marriage — polls show a majority of people support same-sex marriage, but when they can vote behind a closed curtain, they vote against it by an average margin of 2:1.

Even the President himself acknowledged that lower tax rates generate more revenue to the government, but prefers higher taxes for the purpose of “fairness”.  What about socialism is so appealing?


  1. WTH is going on in this country? I remember when socialism was a dirty word and it was not that long ago. It’s like they are trying to ease us into the idea with their word choices. “Socialized” health care is a perfect example. The American people are being “retrained” to hate what the country was built on and accept what we once fought against. Crazy stuff. I am reblogging this to DCC. i know my readers will find this fascinating as well.

    • Dean

      I feel your pain. What was once considered anathema as government policy is now seemingly embraced with enthusiasm. This is why I posted a while back that we need to bring back the USSR, if for nothing else but to serve as the world’s bad example of governance. It was a time when we could point to them and recognize the perils of what are now, Liberal policies.

  2. Reblogged this on The D.C. Clothesline.

  3. The liberals I know have this strange, bi-polar attitude. On the one than, they loudly attack free enterprise, profits and all the “Bigs” (business, pharma, oil), “Wall Street” and claim that capitalism is the source of all things evil and must be destroyed for society to become healthy and sustainable again. Business owners are the enemy and must be controled by government (as long as it’s a government they approve of) to prevent them from taking advantage of their poor, helpless employees and shafting their customers with inflated pricing, all in the name of greed and moneymoneymoney.

    Then they turn around and promote campaigns encouraging people to support “small business”, buying local, and so on, completely unwilling to admit that these are every bit as capitalistic as any of the “Bigs” they condemn.

    What’s really funny is watching some of them try and justify their own businesses/enterprises. I know one that is an author and a publisher of several magainzes, most about being “green”, “natural” and “sustainable. She regularly comments about how much she struggles between her personal ideologies and the need to make enough money to put food on the table and keep a roof over her head. And she’s been doing it for more then 30 years!

  4. They wonder why secession talks are escalating. I’ll be honest… I don’t think even Texas is ready to make that happen but if it does, I would seriously consider trying to relocate there. It’s insanity right now.

  5. I don’t think some people know what socialism is. If you didn’t know what socialism was and you wanted to appear smart to a pollster when asked whether or not you favorred it, you’d make a quick mental word association (Hmmm… Socialism… Social is good. Working together, and stuff, right? Folks say I’m a sociable guy. Maybe that’s what they’re asking about. I’m for being sociable…) and then “Yep. Socialism. Good stuff”.

    I honestly think that 5 out of 10 random Americans don’t really know the difference.

    • C2C,

      I think you’re probably on to something. It may be that people don’t understand how close to communism socialism really is. It may be that they view socialism as everyone sharing what they have so everyone can get along. They may not be thinking that when the government takes what you have and gives it away, that’s when it crosses the moral line.

  6. Reading these comments, I get the strong impression this blog author and readers are not open-minded about this issue. If you take the most extreme liberal positions, it gets scary. However, most liberals are not that extreme. Under the right circumstances, socialism can succeed, although it is not correct for the US. It’s really a matter of lifestyle. Socialism = reduced opportunity for the individual but more “security” of a social kind. Capitalism = increased opportunity but also less security. I put “security” in quotes for a reason. The only reason socialism succeeds in certain European countries is because the US provides a national security blanket that keeps the bad guys out. This compensates for a major failing of socialism. In other words, the US enables socialism in other countries. Think about it.

  7. interestingblogger says:

    Reblogged this on Interesting Blogger: Reporting to benefit the commoner and commented:
    There’s no problem with that. Socialism isn’t a bad thing at all. Socialism is not associated with the former Soviet Union, any of its allies or existing current “socialist” states. Those that use socialism in that manner are using it wrong.

  8. America is already socialist: we have Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. These are all examples of taking money from productive, hard-working people and giving it to people who do not earn their own way, or who cannot provide for their own medical needs. Reagan railed against the fact that America’s socialism reduced our freedom, and it does. The reduction in freedom is small. The increase in security is substantial, so people are willing to make this tradeoff.

    For those who favor the free market, perhaps you harken back to the 1910’s when government regulations were less onerous, and social security and medicare did not exist. Those were the days: “Nevertheless, child labor continued to gain popularity and at the turn of the 19th century one fifth of all children ages 10-16 were employed. At the same time sweatshops formed the bulk of the garment industry and other industries. Starting in 1916, several laws were passed by the US Congress to set standards for child labor (like a minimum age limit of 14 in certain industries), but laws passed by Congress were repetitively struck down by the Supreme Court because they infringed on personal freedom.”

    Yes, Conservatives are for freedom, the freedom of children to work. Curse those child labor laws! Curses to social security and medicare! Someday we will be rid of these socialist scourges and we will all be free again!

  9. Mannucci,

    You seem to confuse abuses with the liberty that allows them. LIberty, as imagined by the founders, required people of character so that such abuses do not occur. We do not need child labor laws if children weren’t being exploited. Why should a child not be free to work if the need exists? For my part, I would certainly work hard in order to prevent such a need, and I would expect all people of character to do the same. Farmers always utilized their offspring at the earliest possibility in order to achieve the success of their farms. It taught the kids a work ethic so many of our kids today lack.

    As to Social Security and Medicare, a people that denies self-gratification in order to secure their future would not need either. To have these types of programs leads people to live in a manner that eliminates a level of discipline that their absence would demand. I would prefer that no one ever needs either. Too many depend upon them when they should have provided for their own selves. Now, we can’t do away with them without being accused of heartlessness.


  1. […] is a response to this post that finds Democrats tolerant of socialism, which actually is successful in smaller countries that […]

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: