Let me be clear: I'm a nobody. In the grand scheme of things, I'm not even on the totem pole. I'm a woodshaving trying to get onto the totem pole. As a part-time English instructor at a community college in the South with absolutely no publications behind my name, nobody gives a damn about me or my opinion. Hell, I'll bet not even two people read this blog. And, you know, that's fine by me. My job is to teach and educate. While being a public intellectual must have its perks, such as coveted paid positions as an analyst on one of the cable news network stations, that is not my calling. My purpose is empowerment and uplift through education and information access.
Though I am a nobody, it doesn't feel good to be ignored on an issue that I think is pivotal to the upcoming election year. On my Twitter account, I mentioned every media personality that I follow with a simple request: ask any conservative and/or Republican politicians that they may interview, "What, actually, is the definition for _______?" You may fill in the blank with any conservative code word that relates to economics: "socialism," "wealth redistribution," "fascism." The truth is, the American public, including the very people who are using these terms, don't know what the Hell they are talking about. They kind-of-sort-of know. Mention socialism or fascism and they picture Hitler or some European country where upward economic/social mobility is almost impossible. Mention wealth redistribution and they think Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution. In this sense, Republicans/conservatives expertly exploit the racist notions and ignorance of their constituents. It is one major way, outside of social/moral/religious issues that most Republicans/conservatives continue to get poor people to vote against their own interests by electing them to office.
Since I am a teacher by trade (an underpaid state worker with no healthcare benefits or a salary that would support my family should I suddenly find myself single), I'm going to take a moment and teach here. Maybe the two or three people who read this blog can spread the word. Webster's Dictionary online, as well the paperback copy has several definitions for socialism. Many people think they are hearing the first two major definitions which concerns a system where private property is eradicated, and the government controls all major industries. It basically exists as a transition from capitalism to communism (I'm using a lower-case "c" here because communism varies from people to people). However, there is a third definition listed by Webster's: a system in which exists as a transition between communism and capitalism, characterized by UNEQUAL PAY AND UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH ACCORDING TO THE WORK BEING PERFORMED. According to that definition, I must ask, are we living in a socialist state here in the proclaimed capitalist meritocracy of the United States of America? From a worker's standpoint, wages have been frozen for the past decade. I could cite over 100 viable sources which point out that workers have seen their wages drop while the ones at the top, the people who benefit from the workers' production such as the Koch brothers, have done remarkably well.
While many people think of redistribution of wealth as taking from the rich, or taking private property and giving it to the state, it has actually played a reversal role here in the United States. Truthfully, George W. Bush presided over the largest redistribution of wealth in the country. The huge, tax-payer funded bail-out of private banks is just one manifestation of this redistribution. These companies got bail-outs, which were funded on the backs of the middle and working class here in America, and simultaneously distributed some of the largest salaries and bonuses to their executives the world has ever seen. The Republican regime of the 2000s did it all while smiling and yelling, "Country first." Anybody who questioned their policies were seen as "un-American." Again, according to Webster's, this is a textbook example of fascism.
The public's ignorance about the differences between their idea of these terms and the reality of it is partly due to a false belief in the upward economic mobility of the American Dream, centuries-old race baiting, and lack of concern shown by media figures of color here. When most Americans think "socialism" or "wealth redistribution," they think single Black women on welfare riding around in a Cadillac. This is due in part to Ronald Reagan's phantom Black welfare queen and the conservative media circus. However, I cannot let liberal or Black media figures off the hook for this. They, we (even though I don't consider myself a media figure at all) let this happen, too. We allow Black and Latino female faces continue to be the mascot for words and ideas that most Americans don't truly understand. They just know that these things are bad. To be clear, I'm not advocating that communism or socialism is good. What I'm talking about is how my Black female face could easily be grafted onto these ideas, and used to promote racist, wealth redistributing policies that continue to hurt ALL poor, working class, and middle class people.
And to think, some of this could be avoided if one damn newscaster or television/radio personality would ask a Congressman like Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor one simple question, "Could you please, for the sake of clarity, define socialism or wealth redistribution for the American public..." Even though I watch Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, I have yet to hear even the very liberal Lawrence O'Donnell (I can't say Maddow, since they dare not appear on her show), Ed Schultz, or Al Sharpton do so.
