In between job hunting and settling into my new apartment in Somerville, Massachusetts, I watch copious amounts of mainstream news cycles about the presidential election. While far away from my radical political circles in New York City, I still hear about socialism via attacks launched by the sinking GOP presidential ticket and its surrogates against Barack Obama. The “danger” of raising taxes on the wealthiest 5% has replaced reforms such changing the ownership of industries, government-guaranteed healthcare, and free education from pre-K to college as the Red Menace in the 21st century US of A. But I have to ask myself: is it unfair, or at least understandable, that most Americans have a different image of socialism than me? Have they been lead astray or is the term the problem in itself?

Some of my lefty buddies complain that it’s unfair that socialism is being poorly defined by the media. Guess what? That’s life. That problem stems from the US never having a democratic socialist or social democratic movement comparable to those in Europe of Latin America. Most Americans learn about socialism not through political engagement or political discourse but via lectures in high school. I remember in the 8th grade being taught that socialism will make everyone “the same.” Of course, I said that was baloney. In the 10th grade I was told that Scandinavian countries were rolling back their welfare states. Proudly again, and now a bit older, I said that was bull.

Of course, in the latter case I was wrong. I didn’t understand – nor did most of my classmates – that global neoliberal capitalism was leading even democratic left parties to make a turn towards pro-market policies. But the comment I heard in the eighth grade still haunts me: only utopian socialists in the 18th century dreamt of a world where everyone would earn the exact same amount. But absent a socialist movement showing Americans otherwise, what student would take the words of David Duhalde over the all-powerful powerful teacher?

I watch on MSNBC, CNN, and (yes) Fox News as the right-wing pundits identify Obama with the next coming of Salvador Allende, Michael Manley, or Fidel Castro (all of whom, of course, had different visions of what a postcaptialist society would be). The readers of this blog are intelligent enough to know that Obama’s wanting to redistribute some tax revenue to increase the purchasing power of the middle and working classes makes him no more of a socialist than the Bush-Cheney government curtailing civil rights makes them fascists. Sharing a tenet of a belief system a true follower does not make. Proposing to “spread the wealth” doesn’t make you a socialist and increasing state power to erode individual freedoms doesn’t make you a fascist. In the end, what the pundits can’t agree on – and neither can the radical left – is what “socialism” actually means.

I laughed when former Republican congressman and talking head Joe Scarborough insinuated Obama is acting like a “eurosocialist.” It recalled my memory of as a sophomore dusting off an unread copy of the DSA promoted book Eurosocialism, with a faded fist and rose on its cover, at a college house one night. The book had probably sat there since the 1980s, well after many people proclaimed democratic socialism to be on the march in Western and Southern Europe. So, decades later, how off was my friend Joe about “eurosocialism?” Well – it depends on what you think “eurosocialism” is. As a Greek student said to me at the Socialist International conference this year, his party (PASOK) went from “socialist to social democratic to neoliberal and now back to social democratic” without changing its name. That settled for me the simple fact that the definition of what makes one a socialist is rather fluid.

Many people who call themselves socialists or belong to (big S) Socialist/Social Democratic parties around the world don’t support radical change or the overthrow of capitalism. But chances are those folks are still to the left of Obama on the role of unions in society, access to affordable healthcare, guaranteed quality education, etc. The inability for Americans to get a serious understanding of what the European left has stood for means that some US citizens will believe any liberal reform is the second coming of Bolshevism. Only in America could a candidate receive the an endorsement from Warren Buffet – the richest man in the country and a venture capitalist – and raise more money from Wall Street than his right-wing rival while still being labeled a threat to the capitalist system.

Had McCain tried this “Obama supports socialism” farce earlier, it might have stuck. Certainly the lack of education around socialism in this country helps him. However, it’s now too little, too late to label Obama as the next Norman Thomas. But despite the problem of properly defining socialism for Americans, we should thank McCain and Palin for giving us this opportunity to talk about our political beliefs. I’ve used it.

David Duhalde was National Organizer for the Young Democratic Socialists from 2006 to 2008. He currently is a member of Boston Democratic Socialists of America. This page is paid for by the Democratic Sociaists of America PAC, 75 Maiden Lane #505, New York, NY 10038; and is not approved by any candidate or candidate’s committee