Here’s a question for you.
Why is it that advocating for universal healthcare or affordable education instantly earns you the “Socialist” stamp, while demanding mass deportation gets you labeled a “Populist?”
Let’s talk about the rabble-rousing elephant in the room.
Throughout his presidency, Trump implemented policies that expanded government power, targeted minorities and curtailed civil rights, platformed white supremacists, targeted immigrants and intervened in private business decisions. By any measure, these actions align more closely with authoritarian or fascist tendencies than with traditional conservative ideology.
But how often did you hear major media outlets call Trump a Fascist?
I’ll wait while you count on one hand.
I’ll wait while you count on just your middle finger.
Meanwhile, left-leaning politicians from Bernie to Beto to AOC are called socialists by anyone who feels like it.
Any day of the fucking week.
The asymmetry is striking, isn’t it?
We’re playing a twisted game of political Taboo, where certain words are off-limits for some players but fair game for others. And this isn’t just semantic nitpicking - it has real consequences for how we perceive and discuss political ideas.
So what gives? Why the double standard?
Part of it boils down to the baggage these labels carry. “Socialist” conjures images of bread lines in Soviet Russia or the economic collapse of Venezuela. It’s a boogeyman, a convenient shorthand for “dangerous radical who wants to destroy our way of life.” Never mind that most self-proclaimed Democratic Socialists in America advocate for policies more in line with Nordic social democracies than Stalinist Russia.
“Fascist,” on the other hand, is the nuclear option of political insults. It evokes Hitler, Mussolini, and the darkest chapters of 20th-century history. To label someone a Fascist is to place them beyond the pale of acceptable discourse. It’s a rhetorical atom bomb that, once dropped, leaves little room for nuance or debate.
But our reluctance to use the F-word doesn’t stem from some noble commitment to civility. If that were the case, we’d be equally hesitant to throw around terms like “Socialist” or “Communist.”
No, this is about something else entirely.
It’s about the Overton Window - the range of ideas considered acceptable in mainstream political discourse.
And right now, that window is so skewed that advocating for policies common in most developed nations gets you branded a dangerous radical, while flirting with authoritarianism is treated as just another day in politics.
This isn’t an accident. It’s the result of decades of concerted effort to shift the boundaries of acceptable political thought. Think about it: how many times have you heard capitalism described as synonymous with freedom? How often is any critique of free-market orthodoxy met with cries of “Socialism!”?
It’s a masterclass in framing, really. By consistently associating left-leaning policies with the specter of authoritarian communism, certain political and media actors have effectively narrowed the range of “acceptable” economic discourse. Meanwhile, the creep of authoritarianism from the right is downplayed, normalized, or ignored altogether.
This shit matters. The words we use shape how we think, and how we think shapes the world we live in. When we allow one set of ideas to be consistently demonized while giving others a free pass, we’re not just playing word games - we’re actively warping our political reality.
Consider healthcare. In most developed nations, the idea that healthcare should be a universal right, not a privilege based on wealth, is uncontroversial. Yet in America, suggest that maybe people shouldn’t go bankrupt because they got sick, and suddenly you’re Karl fucking Marx.
On the flip side, when a president publicly pressures private companies to bend to his will, or suggests that maybe he deserves more than two terms in office, it’s treated as just another day in the three-ring circus of American politics. “That’s just Trump being Trump,” they say, as if personalizing autocratic behavior somehow makes it less dangerous.
This disparity in labeling doesn’t just affect how we perceive individual politicians or policies. It fundamentally shapes our understanding of what’s possible and desirable in our political system. It creates a false dichotomy: unfettered capitalism on one side, Venezuelan-style socialism on the other, with seemingly nothing in between.
But here’s the dirty secret: this dichotomy is bullshit. It’s a false choice designed to limit our political imagination and maintain the status quo. The reality is far more complex, with a spectrum of possible systems and policies that don’t fit neatly into our oversimplified labels.
We need to call out this bullshit when we see it. When someone gets slapped with the “Socialist” label for proposing policies that are commonplace in other democracies, point it out. When authoritarian behavior gets a pass because it comes from the “right” side of the political spectrum, call it what it is.
“Socialism” isn’t a dirty word - it’s a broad category of political and economic systems with a complex history and many variations. Some have failed spectacularly, others have brought tangible benefits to millions. Treating it as a monolith is intellectually lazy and politically dangerous.
We need to be willing to use terms like “Fascism” when they apply, even if it makes us uncomfortable. This doesn’t mean throwing the word around carelessly - that would only further devalue it.
But when we see the warning signs - cult of personality, demonization of the “other,” contempt for democratic norms - we need to be willing to name it.
It’s fucking Fascism.
Whether you like it or not.
Whether the media prints it or not.
There’s no other way to interpret this malarkey.
