|
the problem is that the people who use them interchangeably won't believe they are different, and will assume anything that says otherwise is a liberal plot. I know this sounds cynical, but....
The way I tried to explain it is like this: the reason they see them as being interchangeable is because they see them all as being "Big Government" (and because rightwing pundits have been using them interchangeably for decades). The problem with this is that it confuses "quantity" (big government) with "quality" (actual style/philosophy/system of government). In other words, it's like saying a pound of garbage and a pound of food are the same thing because they both weigh a pound.
The actual systems of government/economics is not only a bit complex but somewhat nuanced, and colored by not only valid attempts at those forms of government, but also by dictatorships which were using the names of those forms of government to gain power (ie: pretending to be Populist to gain the trust of the people in order to take control of them, much like the GOP has done lately).
I would also point to real world examples of nations which use true Socialist elements but still have remarkable freedoms (and in some cases more than we do) such as some of the Scandinavian countries. One problem you will encounter, however, is that this has been anticipated and there are already websites put out by rightwing thinktanks like mises.org) out there saying that these places are actually hellish and have no freedoms, or not as successful financially as we think they are. Again, the basic problem is that they seem to be immune to facts.
|