If the government owns the land that's old fashioned socialism. (I'm not claiming that any government ownership of land means we have a socialist system, just that government ownership of land makes the economy more socialist, you might have to have quite a bit "more socialist" to actually have the system be socialist)
As for education and healthcare, few if any countries leave those primarily to the private sector. I can't think of one where there isn't heavy or complete government control.
True but I don't see how it is relevant.
If other countries do the same that only means they are socialist in this area as well. The government owns the majority of the means of production of education services, and regulates the minority it doesn't own. Education is a highly socialist activity all around, and health care is increasingly so, but socialism doesn't become "not socialism" if socialism becomes more common and more widely accepted.
The fantasy that one favors huge government while the other hates it is belied by the government spending record the last 30 years, IMHO.
The Democrats are more likely to expand government spending in new directions, but they are also more likely to control spending in the Republicans favorite areas, then the Republicans are to control the Democrats spending.
Also the Democrats often control congress even when the president is a Republican, so I don't think you can just look at the party of the president. The data where Republicans control both houses of congress and the presidency (since WWII) is limited to just one presidency and really isn't enough to come to some larger conclusion.
But I still agree with the idea that the Republicans have become big spenders, and rarely had any serious impact on controlling spending growth (maybe only in the Gingrich congress did they do this). But that isn't really relevant to the point either. The issue is the connection between the liberal left and socialist ideas. If most the Republicans are also connected, that doesn't reduce the connection to the liberal left it just means "we're all socialists now". I certainly hope that isn't the case, but either way I don't see why it should effect conclusions about the original issue. |
