Have the GOP neutralized the "socialist" label?

[BlueSwan]

I was wondering how a self-described socialist like Bernie Sanders could possibly be doing as well as he currently is, in a primary to become the next president of the united states. Until recently, that would have seemed completely inconceivable. Not merely a "liberal", which is already being used as a derogatory term by conservatives, but a "socialist", the embodiment of evil as used by many americans. Granted, I am not from the US, but I remember when I lived in the US in the 90s, that I was regarded like some left wing extremist, while being a centrist in Denmark.

It struck me that perhaps the GOP have more or less neutralized the term by consistently and wrongly labeling Barack Obama a socialist. The idea is that if Barack Obama is a socialist, then perhaps socialism really isn't that dangerous after all. America has gotten used to having a "socialist" president. This obviously benefits Sanders, who proudly stands by being a socialist.

This also begs the question whether simply labeling Sanders a socialist would even be enough to defeat him in the unlikely scenario that he wins the democratic nomination.

Thoughts?

[Figueira]

The people who think Obama is a socialist aren't the people who support Sanders. Sanders is only getting support among the left-most end of the American political spectrum.

However, I think you're partially right in that the Republican Party's constant attacks against socialism has made the left more willing to embrace it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I was wondering how a self-described socialist like Bernie Sanders could possibly be doing as well as he currently is, in a primary to become the next president of the united states. Until recently, that would have seemed completely inconceivable. Not merely a "liberal", which is already being used as a derogatory term by conservatives, but a "socialist", the embodiment of evil as used by many americans. Granted, I am not from the US, but I remember when I lived in the US in the 90s, that I was regarded like some left wing extremist, while being a centrist in Denmark.

It struck me that perhaps the GOP have more or less neutralized the term by consistently and wrongly labeling Barack Obama a socialist. The idea is that if Barack Obama is a socialist, then perhaps socialism really isn't that dangerous after all. America has gotten used to having a "socialist" president. This obviously benefits Sanders, who proudly stands by being a socialist.

This also begs the question whether simply labeling Sanders a socialist would even be enough to defeat him in the unlikely scenario that he wins the democratic nomination.

Thoughts?

You might be onto something. Overusing and abusing a word certainly leads to losing its potency.

That's what happened here too. Our left wing parties used to characterize as "fascists" anyone who dared to have different views that them (even Tsipras himself said that Papandreou was "worse than Pinochet").
So when the real fascists of Golden Dawn appeared nobody was really scared by them.

[Mister Mets]

I don't think it's anything the GOP has done as much as the general leftward tilt of Democrats.

Part of it is Obama's election, since he is the most liberal president since the 1970s. And before anyone brings up dw-nominate scores those measure relative leftism, those compare politicians to their contemporaries, which doesn't settle the question of where a politician rates in a different political environment.

Another factor is the national media, which allows liberals to pay more attention to their favorite figures than ever before. That ensures national support for the Elizabeth Warrens and the Bernie Sanderses. It was possible before, as evident by McGovern's nomination, but it's easier now.

The end of the Soviet Union also leads to more Americans being ignorant of the shortcomings of communism and capitalism. Add to that the economic crisis of 2007/2008, and the fears of economic change.