We don’t trust the Congress. We don’t trust the Executive. And since Bush v. Gore and all the 5-4 decisions since, we no longer trust the Supreme Court.
However, by all measures, Americans have a high level of trust in the U.S. military. Admiration too.
Don’t tell the flag wavers that the United States Military is an entirely Socialist enterprise. It would spoil their fun.
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
Whatever Works 
FYI, I also posted my response on my site in case you would rather respond there: http://americadoneright.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/i-hope-they-are-just-ignorate/
LikeLike
Not quite, Moe. The military is a state institution, but strictly speaking it produces very little of material value (though I guess one could argue that ‘security’ is a measure of value all on its own).
Socialism means the control of the means of production by the workers whom produce something of material value, either directly or indirectly via the state. Hence, things that simply uphold public order, like the military, the police, and the judicial system, are not socialist because they produce things of intangible as opposed to tangible value. Hardly any Republican worth their salt would consider core institutions of the state to be ‘socialist’.
LikeLike
Americans constantly refer to the demon ‘European Socialism’, which does not appear tto include “control of the means of production”. It seems to mean State largesse on those intangibles and on social welfare – none of which ‘produce’ anything.
LikeLike
True, but that is not the classic definition of socialism. Americans seem to associate it with strong egalitarianism, or ‘reform’ socialism instead, where the state is used to ‘redistribute’ wealth.
Oddly enough, the original socialists despised the state, and considered it an instrument of class oppression.
LikeLike
That’s certainly true D.I.D., but I think we left that ‘classic’ definition behind decades ago. And of course, we redistribute here as does the rest of the Western and developed world, although not as much. And that seems to be why we call them Socialists.
LikeLike
Another Socialist enterprise – the Green Bay Packers. In that case, the ‘state’, the people, actually own the team.
LikeLike
The Greenbay Packers are more like a corporation than an example of socialism.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/sep/18/scott-keyes/left-leaning-think-tank-writer-says-green-bay-pack/
LikeLike
Right Patriot, they are indeed a corporation. All non profits have to be incorporated. I read your link all the way through – there is a good deal of disagreement on what actually constitutes a socialist enterprise – beginning with Brittanica and Merriam-Webster offering different definitions of socialism. And the article offers opions from ‘experts’ who disagree with each other.
So it may be a matter – as these htings often are – of language and how to define something. Which often leads to situations where people are using the same word but mean different things – and don’t know it. And that of course, can cause very serious problems.
But thanks for the honest effort to add to the conversation.
LikeLike
I agree Moe, we need to define what we are talking about before making definitive statements.
LikeLike
I think if we were clear with each other about ideas or goals, and ariculated that instead of using labels, a lot more common purpose could develop. I have done that intenetionally sometimes where someone and I are disagreeing, but when we get into it, we find that we really doon’t disagree all that much!
LikeLike