The idea is that people will be more willing to seriously consider socialism if they don't turn their brains off as soon as the word is mentioned.
She could have easily said that what she regards as socialism is what promotes the interests of the working class above other concerns or what other countries are doing or have done.
This would have been a good answer, too, but the answer she gave (1) responds to the part of the question about which countries she wants to emulate, and (2) is in a broader context of pointing to stuff like Britain's NHS as a superior healthcare model.
I know that's the goal of the idea. I'm skeptical about its efficacy or that it will lead to anything. I'm only seeing socialist becoming another term for liberal.
If "socialist" becomes as mainstream and inoffensive as "liberal," that makes it far easier to talk to people about socialism. You can talk about socialism as socialism, you can point them to openly-socialist resources, it's easier to get them to reconsider what they know about actually socialist countries.
Maybe I've simply had poor experiences with this, but it's only become more difficult talking with them. Now they won't accept that they might have a wrong idea of what socialism means or what we should be advancing. I already have associates who treat socialism (the term) as inoffensive, but they still basically promote mainstream liberal centrism. They refer to American cops as socialist. They call Biden a socialist and act all proud.
The only thing that's changed is they'll refer to what they previously called socialist (Cuba, USSR, Marxism, class politics, etc) as "authoritarian" or "divisive" or whatever word they come up with on the spot. All they've done is take the spooky s-word and replace it with others.
Unless your associates are completely post-fact -- and that's increasingly common, although those people aren't persuadable anyway -- they're going to get tied to the real definition of socialism at some point. It's like debating people about what is or isn't capitalism (another term that's popularly nebulous). At some point, if the person is at least someone connected to reality, you can go to authoritative sources on the matter to establish what it really means. I won't deny that this is a whole process, but at least you're talking about socialism at that point, and they're not just shutting down the conversation out of hand.
I just think by avoiding america’s enemies, it avoids the question of how illegitimate the government is.
Consider how radical "the U.S. government is illegitimate" is. That's not an idea that's going to click with very many people who watch CNN; they're going to reject it as it's too far outside their current beliefs. You can't throw people in the deep end right away, you have to bring them along a little bit and at least get them comfortable treading in leftist waters. It's a pipeline to leftism, not an instant conversion.
Then there's the idea that most people don't care about foreign policy much anyways, and so you're not going to score points with anyone for having great foreign policy takes most of the time. There's no much to gain, but you can easily get roasted -- look at how Bernie got a crucial week's worth of bad coverage over extremely innocuous comments about Cuba's healthcare and education.
I have also never really had much push back on claiming the government is illegitimate.
Are you talking to the average CNN viewer, though? And might people be willing to entertain more radical ideas in person, from a regular guy, than they would from an elected official?
Belief in the illegitimacy of the government makes more sense in a heavily red area. I think at that point it comes down to who's just culturally conservative (and the hostility to government that comes with that) and who's an ideologically-committed right-winger. The latter isn't reachable, but the former might be.
The idea is that people will be more willing to seriously consider socialism if they don't turn their brains off as soon as the word is mentioned.
This would have been a good answer, too, but the answer she gave (1) responds to the part of the question about which countries she wants to emulate, and (2) is in a broader context of pointing to stuff like Britain's NHS as a superior healthcare model.
I know that's the goal of the idea. I'm skeptical about its efficacy or that it will lead to anything. I'm only seeing socialist becoming another term for liberal.
If "socialist" becomes as mainstream and inoffensive as "liberal," that makes it far easier to talk to people about socialism. You can talk about socialism as socialism, you can point them to openly-socialist resources, it's easier to get them to reconsider what they know about actually socialist countries.
Maybe I've simply had poor experiences with this, but it's only become more difficult talking with them. Now they won't accept that they might have a wrong idea of what socialism means or what we should be advancing. I already have associates who treat socialism (the term) as inoffensive, but they still basically promote mainstream liberal centrism. They refer to American cops as socialist. They call Biden a socialist and act all proud.
The only thing that's changed is they'll refer to what they previously called socialist (Cuba, USSR, Marxism, class politics, etc) as "authoritarian" or "divisive" or whatever word they come up with on the spot. All they've done is take the spooky s-word and replace it with others.
Unless your associates are completely post-fact -- and that's increasingly common, although those people aren't persuadable anyway -- they're going to get tied to the real definition of socialism at some point. It's like debating people about what is or isn't capitalism (another term that's popularly nebulous). At some point, if the person is at least someone connected to reality, you can go to authoritative sources on the matter to establish what it really means. I won't deny that this is a whole process, but at least you're talking about socialism at that point, and they're not just shutting down the conversation out of hand.
deleted by creator
Consider how radical "the U.S. government is illegitimate" is. That's not an idea that's going to click with very many people who watch CNN; they're going to reject it as it's too far outside their current beliefs. You can't throw people in the deep end right away, you have to bring them along a little bit and at least get them comfortable treading in leftist waters. It's a pipeline to leftism, not an instant conversion.
Then there's the idea that most people don't care about foreign policy much anyways, and so you're not going to score points with anyone for having great foreign policy takes most of the time. There's no much to gain, but you can easily get roasted -- look at how Bernie got a crucial week's worth of bad coverage over extremely innocuous comments about Cuba's healthcare and education.
deleted by creator
Are you talking to the average CNN viewer, though? And might people be willing to entertain more radical ideas in person, from a regular guy, than they would from an elected official?
deleted by creator
Belief in the illegitimacy of the government makes more sense in a heavily red area. I think at that point it comes down to who's just culturally conservative (and the hostility to government that comes with that) and who's an ideologically-committed right-winger. The latter isn't reachable, but the former might be.