Republicans Shifting Definition of "Socialism"

For any debate to be productive there must be fixed definitions of words. The words may even have incorrect definitions but so long as they are unchanging the debate can move forward without deliberate confusion as to the meaning of each side's arguments. "Socialism" is a word often used in modern political debates. But its deliberately shifting definitions help Republicans and increase confusion. The libertarian REASON.COM has a similar commentary on this issue. http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/05/are-we-all-socialists-now And the liberal Princeton economist Alan Binder make his case, too. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751241072091037.html Once and for all let's get a single working definition. • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism • http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism • http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism • http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism All of these definitions include state/government ownership of all means of production. Using this correct definition of "Socialism" then I confidently state I am against it (and Obama is against it). HOWEVER... That is not the popular definition of "Socialism" as most Republicans use it. They use the word "Socialism" to mean any redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Any welfare or unemployment insurance is socialism to the GOP. Any form of Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security is socialism to the Republicans. Using their broader definition then I confidently state that the overwhelming majority of Americans are "socialists" (myself included). Most Americans don't want to abolish those government programs. It's not even close. Anyone who argues against the existence of all of those programs can't get elected in over 75% of the country. So the Republicans inveigh against democrats by using the pejorative connotation of the word "Socialism" because it still conjures images of Soviet-style dread in listeners minds. But when it comes to actual policy they know it would be political suicide to propose cutting those very popular government programs. I can't wait for a substantial percentage of  journalists with integrity to really challenge the libertarian purists by demanding a list of the programs they want to cut and by how much. I'm predicting today (Tuesday, November 9th, 2010) that one of two things will happen by the end of the 2012 elections: 1) Republicans as a whole will betray their "tea party/libertarian" base and propose no substantive cuts (instead tactically planning to simply stall/prevent Obama's agenda and then claim his lack of success augers well for a Republican return to total power) ...OR... 2) Republicans will substantially split between the "corporatists" who are politically savvy enough to avoid fighting popular programs and the "tea party libertarians" who will infuriate the public which will lead to a landslide for democrats further buttressing Obama's power (and clear reelection). We'll see