OPINION: Painting political opponents with a broad brush still requires accurate paint

Pro tip: Eisenhower is no longer in office. You might not know with recent political buzz that communism is apparently afoot on the political hustings although calling someone a communist was a widely used insult well beyond mid-century. Having been called a “commie pinko” and having worked for what some called a “commie pinko rag,” I am both amused and annoyed by this latest foray into name calling, guilt by association and other forms of ad hominem hooey that neither advances an argument nor spreads accurate information.

We’ve come to expect what has become the latest hyperbolic political bogeyman  — “Democrats-are-communists” —  from the president who made references to communism 81 times in the two weeks since Democratic Socialists won primaries in New York and Colorado. 

But none other than Nebraska’s own Sen. Pete Ricketts made his own link in the Marxist-Leninist red chain when he told a recent gathering in Fort Calhoun that ” … if you‘re unhappy, say with inflation, the worst thing you can do is elect a communist …”.

I’ll leave it to the economists as to whether that is accurate, but neither Ricketts, nor anyone else, identified which candidate that might be.

He did say, ”We’ve got to do a better job teaching our young people about what this (referencing votes for Democratic Socialists) actually means because we’ve seen this before. In fact, communists got elected into the federal government back in the 1930s.”

Although I could find no record of a communist being elected to the federal government in the 1930s, we absolutely agree with Ricketts that some education is in order. Good idea, Senator. But why stop at young people? If we’re going to be yoking candidates and office holders with the communist label, perhaps we should refresh our understanding of what communism actually is, how it differs from socialism and just what do these Democratic Socialists stand for.

I apologize in advance for the pedantics, but for starters, the communists, in theory, want it all. According to research and information services provider, EBSCO, communism “… is an economic and political system that envisions a classless society through collective ownership of resources and centralized control over production and distribution.” A party, an authoritarian or an autocrat doles out the fruits of labor according to need. No private property. No say-so. No thanks. Today, five countries are considered communists: China, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba.

While socialism is often used interchangeably with communism, it’s more of a way station along the way. According to history.com, the socialists are OK with ownership of private property and personal effects but big profit generators such as manufacturing and industrial concerns are owned by the government, which also provides public and social benefits. In theory, and unlike communism, wealth is distributed based on the individual’s contribution to the whole shebang. About 50 countries call themselves socialist, mostly through a constitution.

According to their website, Democratic Socialists want “a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.” They reject “authoritarian visions of socialism” but embrace, among other controversial ideas, “single payer Medicare for All” and the notion that government power is derived from the people, something we’ve heard for 250 years.

While the U.S. leads the world as a capitalist country with a market economy, many, including the Cato Institute and World Population, call what we have a “mixed market economy,” blending the private ownership of production to compete in the marketplace with balancing interests such as those that regulate markets or provide benefits where needed.

Whew … sorry for the elementary stroll through the basics. But if we’re going to blithely toss around terms with which to tag our political opponents, we ought to be using them with more accuracy. We might also do well to put a lid on the name-calling and other muddy methods of trying to look better than the next candidate. After prolonged outbursts of ad hominem nonsense, I, as I’m sure many others do, surmise the speaker is simply out of ideas.

Of course, all of this assumes we care about the quality of campaign conversations, debates and endless television, radio and direct mail ads. Those of us who do still weigh the character of a campaign may be up against the prevailing political winds, where winning is more important than governing, where “owning” the other side is more important than solving problems, where misinformation is a valuable commodity.

For the record, I’m no commie pinko. But I may be out of touch.

Even so, if we’re going to paint with a broad brush, shouldn’t we at least get the colors right?