Just found a perfect definition for Democratic Socialist.......

[a kennedy]

Democracy is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. Combine them and you have a system where the people vote for economics that benefits the whole.

Found it on the "On Point" comment section of NPR: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/10/16/israel-afghanistan-democratic-debate

[Mira]

1. Excellent.

Clear and simple

[a kennedy]

2. Wish I could take credit, but.....alias, I'm not that intelligent.....

But I thought it was clear and simple also.

[Mira]

4. You are plenty intelligent

only really smart people like yourself vote in our photo contests consistently and with appreciation and forethought.
I am one of your greatest fans.

[a kennedy]

5. You're the best Mira......and love, love, love your photographs. Always love the contests. eom

[Hortensis]

3. Charming but unrealistic. Most people do vote their principles,

misguided as they may occasionally be, not their economic self interest.

Plus, the current 60 million or so voters, who believe government interference with the natural order is inevitably destructive of the strong and just society that would develop without it, are not just a temporary aberration. The need of many to believe in a naturally just world, where good tends to be encouraged by success and bad discouraged by failure, is at the core of much that conservatives do that just doesn't make sense to us.

Like fighting high-speed rail and national healthcare because they equate it with "big government," which, again, ultimately destroys society by interfering with the natural order.

Of course, if the Kochs had been drowned at birth, for instance, or maybe just slapped with an 80% income tax, they wouldn't have been able to build this inborn tendency into such a strong, organized national movement to fight progress.

But it is what it is, and for more conservatives the definition is going to be: Democratic socialism = the destruction of all that is good in America.

[CanSocDem]

6. You could always point out the history...

...of 'private' enterprise.

"The need of many to believe in a naturally just world, where good tends to be encouraged by success and bad discouraged by failure, is at the core..."

It hasn't been stellar. The USA has missed a lot of progressive social movements because of a fundamental belief in 'personal worth' over the worth of the community. That 'personal worth' is marked by wealth and so you find yourself being led by those that have wealth.

You live your life in debt and in fear. If this sounds like a "naturally just world", somebody has been pulling your leg.



.

[Hortensis]

13. CanSocDem, I'm a LIBERAL. We're talking about CONSERVATIVE

beliefs here. You're right that for them especially material success tends to indicate personal worth (although most are not stupid enough to think its the only indicator).

As for debt and fear, those are natural consequences that improvident living tends to bring on the undeserving. In this conservative view of a reassuring natural order, problems are both brought on by bad behavior AND encourage most people to try harder. Progressive programs keep people from trying harder and encourage people not to be better. In a natural order, those who continue to live in debt and fear obviously are not trying harder and thus earn for themselves the consequences.

Interference by a welfare state, of course, keeps lazy and improvident people from trying harder. Always. Anyone listening to Fox knows that the people receiving entitlements or earning minimum wage only work if they are forced to.

Very significant for political beliefs, believers in a just world have no trouble in reconciling personal success with duty to community. In a naturally just world, those go hand in hand, successful people being by definition deserving of the success they of course earned and thus, like any superior people, also being assets to their communities.

We can see this last at a glance because they build nicer houses than less deserving people, tend to hire people (jobs creation!) to maintain them well, always keep their cars freshly washed, pay more taxes, give more to charity, and even take on the burden of running their communities. Case closed for the typical conservative.

[demwing]

10. Condescending but arrogant!

Imagine! The proles voting their economic interest! How charming!

[Hortensis]

14. I don't get your message, Demwing. I believe we probably actually

have here some people who are conservative socially but vote liberal economically because they DO believe a corrupted government has helped cause their problems and that a reformed government can be used to help fix them.

That type of conservative is greatly outnumbered by the others, though.

[sammythecat]

16. Spot on, I think you're exactly right.

And about these people you speak of; they can be given example after example proving they've got things wrong and left mumbling with absolutely no argument the contrary, but the next day they'll be right back saying and thinking the very same stupid shit they'd been saying before. Some people get an idea in their head and it's there forever. They simply can not change their minds. It's like they're incapable of doing that and they will not admit they might be wrong. The sky is blue. Well... maybe so, but...

We just have to wait for them to die off and hope there are fewer to take their place. But that has never happened yet. They are always present doing their best to retard civilization.

[Hortensis]

17. Oh, yes! Were you and I at the same party last weekend? :)

SammyTheCat, I now believe they've been encouraged to be the least reasonable and flexible versions of themselves by mass manipulation advertising techniques developed in the 1970s.

Their mental wiring to believe in a just world, and a sorting out of deserving and undeserving, jibes very nicely, of course, with their religion. Yet I imagine you've noticed how far as a crowd they have been lead astray from the teachings of Jesus. Not so far they can't justify it, of course. Jesus had no idea of the evil influences of a future welfare state.

Your "right back saying and thinking" thing, though, is exactly what got me reading about them in the first place. (That and, later on with others, "WHY do all these people hate me?!&quot People who were very likeable and great long-time friends, great parents, etc., would turn into righteous and callous shits, and even worse, whenever discussion turned to "what is wrong with those ______s" (insert name of outsider group).

I did learn there is that moral basis for what I couldn't understand, though. They really believe, or choose to believe, that letting this natural carrot-or-stick sorting out run its course unimpeded is best for people individually and for society. At least the nicer, more principled ones are concerned with that.

[mmonk]

7. .

[cprise]

8. Wikipedia has a good page on it

In short, picture FDR Democrats who consider nationalization to be "on the table" as an option.

Its not about taking over the whole economy.

For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie would try to nationalize heath insurance and the Federal Reserve (which produces money).

[SoapBox]

9. Yup.

[corkhead]

11. Tip of the hat to DUer NorthCarolina for a graphic that sums it up succinctly:

[a kennedy]

12. Love this.....thanks. eom

[WillyT]

15. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!