Oh, please.
“Marxist” is perfectly legitimate as a functional shorthand for a person committed to forcible redistribution of wealth at every fundamental level, to the end that such redistribution provides a base for permanent political power.
Vice “left-liberal establishment statist” for “Marxist” and you don’t end up at a different destination in terms of practical impact of Obama’s views on American politics and national life.
What’s silly is insisting on hyper-technicalities that, in this context, do nothing but honor distinctions without a difference.
It remains to be seen whether that's what's going to happen now. Are the people who gave Obama $600,000,000 really aiming at a "forcible redistribution of wealth at every fundamental level?" All parties want to go on winning elections, but do you really think that we won't have the opportunity to vote Obama and his party out if a majority of us want to?
Vice “left-liberal establishment statist” for “Marxist” and you don’t end up at a different destination in terms of practical impact of Obama’s views on American politics and national life.
Sure, changing the label doesn't change the substance. Call Pol Pot a liberal or a social democrat and you don't end up with a different record for that dictator. What's important, though, is whether Obama and Pol Pot or Obama and Lenin are aiming at the same thing. An earlier generation wouldn't have seriously said that FDR and Stalin were pursuing the same goal. People are getting sloppy lately.
What’s silly is insisting on hyper-technicalities that, in this context, do nothing but honor distinctions without a difference.
What's silly is being the boy who cried "Wolf!" Disregard distinctions and Obama fans who hear him called a Marxist often enough may come to find Marxism attractive. Call real differences "technicalities" and you don't have any defense when your opponents do the same to you.