Some time back, I wrote an article entitled Socialism and Democracy – The People's Combination. In the article, I tried to make the point that words aren't inherently "bad".
As reinforcement for that premise, I invite you to read the late George Carlin's comedic dissertation in which he substitutes the word "f*ck" for the word "kill". It becomes clear via the great Carlin's logic that words are emotionless, lifeless character formations which have no particular agenda.
Absent the comic genius of Carlin, I used his logic in my article to talk about the word "social". The conclusion I came to was that the word "social" in almost all of its variations carries a positive ambiance; in almost all of its variations. However, combine the word social with the suffix "ism" and, voila, Mr. Hyde! A word otherwise used to describe a desired relationship among people becomes instantly dangerous.
I don't bring this up as a veiled attempt to get readers to go back and read my article. That having been said, I don't write for practice, so I'd never discourage anyone from reading or rereading any of my articles.
I bring up this article to explain why the following question doesn't shock me:
"Does anyone reading this realize how close we came to having a completely socialistic government?"
This question was submitted in a letter to the editor of Montana's Billings Gazette. The writer reminds us that 60 Democratic seats in the senate would have given them "unbridled control of this country."
The letter writer is determined that this "socialistic" Congress, along with its "Messiah", would be certain to go from hunter's home to hunter's home confiscating rifles and ammo.