When we call everything an ‘ism,’ we stop hearing what voters actually care about

Every few election cycles, America rediscovers an old political pastime: name-calling dressed up as moral clarity. This year’s favorite epithet is “socialist.” 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and New York City mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani have each been branded with it, often before they finish a sentence.  To their critics, the word evokes Venezuela or the Soviet Union. To their supporters, it means fairness, dignity or simply a system that finally works for ordinary people. 

But when we label something an -ism, we often fail to see what’s actually resonating. Because underneath the slogans and self-descriptions, the other side is winning on the issues that matter most to people’s daily lives: the economy, fairness, opportunity, affordability.

The echo chamber of righteousness

It’s tempting to believe that calling someone a “socialist” — or a “fascist,” or a “communist” — delivers moral precision. It doesn’t. It delivers applause.

HOW THE LEFT’S EMBRACE OF MAMDANI COULD DOOM DEMOCRATS NATIONWIDE

In 1964, Democrats called Barry Goldwater a fascist. He lost, but mostly because he frightened moderates with talk of nuclear war — not because the label landed. What did land was the “Daisy” ad, a 60-second spot that aired once and changed politics forever. 

A little girl plucks petals from a flower as her voice fades into a missile countdown. Then comes a nuclear explosion and Lyndon Johnson’s voice: “These are the stakes: to make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark.” That ad didn’t call Goldwater names; it made voters feel the stakes. It worked because it tied fear to a credible consequence, not an ideology. 

Ever since, politicians have tried to recreate that emotional impact — often forgetting that fear persuades only when it feels believable. Decades later, Republicans warned Barack Obama was a socialist. He won twice. In 2016 and 2024, Democrats branded Donald Trump a fascist. He still won. The pattern is clear: moral name-calling doesn’t persuade. It polarizes. It makes us feel righteous but sound out of touch.

 The illusion of moral clarity

When everything becomes an -ism, we stop listening for the “why.” AOC talks about working families crushed by rent and debt. Bernie talks about dignity in work. Mamdani talks about a city that feels rigged against the middle. 

5 THINGS NEW YORK REPUBLICANS NEED TO HEAR FROM ANDREW CUOMO

You don’t have to agree with their solutions to understand why that message lands. Labeling them “socialist” doesn’t answer their critique — it avoids it. And while we argue over ideology, voters are hearing something simpler and more emotional: someone sees me. That’s why these movements gain traction — not because people are clamoring for socialism, but because they’re desperate for fairness.

The right response isn’t a label — it’s a vision

Instead of calling Mamdani a communist, the right might try saying: We agree — New York should still be the city where anything can happen, where dreams come true and anyone can get ahead. But the answer isn’t handouts or punishing success. It’s creating more opportunity for everyone. That’s the message that connects. It’s aspirational, not accusatory.

Imagine if conservatives said: Here are three things we’d do instead.

That’s not socialism. It’s shared success. And it reframes the conversation from fear to possibility.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

When words lose meaning, trust follows

We throw ideological grenades — “socialist,” “fascist,” “extremist,” “woke” — the way we once tossed adjectives. The result is exhaustion. When everything’s a five-alarm fire, voters stop evacuating the building. The danger isn’t just polarization; it’s meaning collapse. When language becomes theater, politics becomes parody. Outrage turns into a drug. Empathy becomes a weakness.

The working class isn’t asking for -isms

Spend time in diners, union halls and church basements, and you won’t hear ideological language. You’ll hear economic anxiety. Parents wondering if their kids can afford to live where they grew up. Workers asking why two jobs still don’t cover rent. They’re not asking for capitalism or socialism. They’re asking for fairness — a shot at stability and dignity. When politicians argue about -isms instead of ideas, they sound detached from real life.

The politics of normalcy

The leaders who have endured — Reagan, Clinton, Obama in his best moments — didn’t win by labeling their opponents. They won by reassuring voters that their own vision was steady, sane and hopeful. 

Reagan didn’t demonize liberalism; he reframed it. He made it about consequences — higher taxes, slower growth, less freedom. That’s what effective communicators do: they translate ideology into impact. That’s what the right could do now — not rail against socialism, but reassert the American idea that fairness comes from opportunity, not resentment.

The bottom line

If everything you oppose becomes an -ism, you’ll eventually run out of language — and then out of listeners. The goal isn’t to out-label your opponent. It’s to out-listen them. Because the side that will win the next decade isn’t the one shouting the loudest. It’s the one that makes Americans believe again that this country — their country — is still a place where hard work pays off, where fairness feels possible and where the dream still belongs to everyone.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM LEE HARTLEY CARTER

By mfnnews