"istifying rhetoric"

    It just occured to me that the most of the labels the left throws around about (the majority of) Americans who oppose Obamacare are some form of “ist”  (for example: fascist, racist, alarmist, extremists, ideologically rigid capitalists) aside from the fact all these terms are derogatory – the suffix itself is a way of marginalizing the opposition. Not all ists are bad, but all “ists” are specific and exclusionary. There’s nothing wrong with being , for example, an archeologIST but it is certainly a less inclusive term than “workers” (though the left actually uses that in a strangely exclusionary manner which seems to suggest those who make a lot of money don’t qualify)

    Obama, of course, absolutely refuses to istify himself. When his beloved NY Times asked him to define his philosophy in a word ” Is it socialism, is it progressive?” he refused. “I don’t wanna do that.” He, as we know, is for always (rhetorically)  for vague things everyone is for like “reform”, “competition”, “lower costs” (he uses the last 2 terms in a completely Orwellian manner but using them nonetheless) he claims the mantel of every positive seeming term  (bi-partisanship, post- racial, pragmatic, etc.) regardless of the reality as if this alone will cause the public to associate those qualites with him. It probably works on some.

     Anyway basically just a passing observation with regard to the suffix.