The CPAC conference seems to have drawn a lot of criticism this weekend.  I watched the Sunday morning shows and it was certainly on display on This Week and it was also discussed on Fox News Sunday.  The point that came home to me was the criticism that was levied toward what the pundits called “name calling.” 

Name calling is childish.  It reminds most of us of the horrible things our classmates may have said about each of us once or twice in the 2^nd grade.  We all remember what our parents and our teachers told us don’t we?  Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.  But let’s examine what is in a name.

We have endured years of chiding that our last president was an idiot.  Ronald Reagan was called “cowboy” as was George W. Bush and the names though intended to denigrate were not considered derogatory outside the Beltway and were partially accurate.  Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were cowboys to the extent they both enjoyed living and working on the ranch.  It was “Idiot” and “Liar” that probably struck the greatest animus from me.  And now surprise, surprise but what goes around comes around and people are upset by the fact that Barack Obama is being called names.  But what are these names?

No one has called him any racial slurs.  No one has called him “Idiot” that I can recall.  No one has even called him “Stupid” or any other similar word.  They have called him a “Marxist”, a “Socialist”, an “Ideologue”, and a “Progressive”.    But let’s examine what is in these names and let’s ask if it is truly name calling to use an adjective if it is accurate in describing an individual.  An idiot is someone with such a low IQ that they have limited mental faculties.  I would render that no man that was ever elected President of the United States was truly an idiot.  But Marxist, Socialist, Ideologue and Progressive are nouns/adjectives that accurately describe who the man is.  They are not slurs.  They identify an individual based upon his or her beliefs or brand of politics.  The concern is for the words negative connotations. 

Marxist – a person that advances the idea of a classless society in which the wealth of the society is spread over all people

Socialist – a person who believes the government should own the means of production and distribution of goods

Ideologue – a person that impractically hangs onto their ideals

Progressive – an advocate of an ever expanding influence of government that could either be toward the left or toward the right but is always marked by a greater role for government

As stated above, none of these words are slurs.  They describe philosophies of government and upon reading these definitions which of these names does not apply to President Barack Obama? 

1.       Did Barack Obama not tell Joe the Plumber that he wanted to “spread the wealth?”  Is this not a Marxist philosophy?  

2.       Did Barack Obama not nationalize two major automobile companies, Chrysler and General Motors?  Was this not the tactic of a Socialist? 

3.       Despite the negative reception the American people have provided the Healthcare Bill does Barack Obama not hold onto what by now are understood to be impractical ideals about this legislation?  Does this not provide a picture of an ideologue? 

4.       Does Barack Obama through all his rhetoric not provide for an ever-expanding role of government?  Is this not the move of a Progressive? 

Thus, in the sense of names that one might be called, these are not slanderous.  They are not slurs.  They are not the kind of 2^nd grade rhetoric that would elicit the sticks and stones monologues because they accurately describe someone for what his political philosophy is.  The American people elected a dangerous man into the presidency in 2008 and we had better come to realize why he is dangerous.  Our nation was founded with the belief in liberty, private ownership of property and limited government.  The Constitution was constructed with the means to amend it and the method to amend the Constitution was purposely made difficult to avoid the negative consequences of a temporary majority.  With the two houses of our Congress under the control of democrats, democrats who are largely progressive, and the Executive Branch also controlled by a Progressive who I do not believe to be a democrat except in name only, it may only be the court that is left to provide a check on this government until we the people can return to the polls in November and restore some sanity to our government.  Oops!  Did I just call some people a name?  If so I apologize but it is their actions that I am describing.  I am not accusing any of them directly as being insane.