Of course, Luntz isn't suggesting changing what the GOP stands for:
"Conservatives should not be defending capitalism. They should be defending economic freedom. … We’ve always talked about the free enterprise system or economic freedom. Suddenly, they’re trying to defend something that has only 18 percent support."
Maybe they should call capital "freedom funds", too.
Luntz also suggests, "The word 'capitalism' was created by Karl Marx to demonize those people who make a profit." Which, it should come as no surprise, is untrue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology_and_early_usage). #ddtb
Embedded Link
GOP Strategist Frank Luntz: ‘Conservatives Should Not Be Defending Capitalism’
Last year, Mitt Romney told a Tea Party gathering, “I believe in free enterprise, I believe in capitalism.” Now, Romney’s practice of “vulture capitalism,” in Rick Perry’s words, is coming under attac…
I haven't read the Wealth of Nations, so I don't know if Adam Smith used the term "capital" or a synonym for it. Wikipedia notes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations#Anachronisms_and_terminology that the specific term "capitalism" did not exist in the 18th century (as your link notes, that specific term didn't appear until the 19th century). Smith talked about a "system of perfect liberty."
Of course this is all semantics. Whether you speak of a "system of perfect liberty" or "capitalism" or "free enterprise," no such system exists in the world in a pure sense. Bankruptcy laws are just one example of the limitations on our economic liberty, and I don't think even Luntz will campaign for the removal of bankruptcy protection to ensure true "free enterprise."
These so-called strategists (who are actually tacticians) are what disgust me about politics. One example was the tempest in a teapot over Romney's statement that he likes to fire people. Taken in context – that he likes to fire poorly performing people – the statement is perfectly understandable. And all the people who were complaining about Romney's statement are people who want to fire Obama – or will President-elect Rick Perry suddenly say, "Oh no, I couldn't cause poor Barack to lose his job. Let's keep him in office four more years!"?
And the irony is that, whatever the rhetoric about “freedom”, they don’t really believe in free markets at all.
They essentially believe in feudalism – a hierarchical ordering of society with a hereditary oligarchy at the top of the social pyramid. When you remember what some of the religious right said about George W Bush, they also appear to believe in The Divine Right Of Kings.
We Brits beheaded the last king who believed that sort of nonsense.
@Tim – Technically speaking, feudalism implied commitments and obligations in both directions — providing military/police protection, at the very lowest levels. I’m not sure they can be bothered with the taxes for that …
'I don't think even Luntz will campaign for the removal of bankruptcy protection to ensure true "free enterprise."'
Unless it's making it more difficult for individuals to file bankruptcy, +John E. Bredehoft , I agree.
https://plus.google.com/113843009097459888314/posts/g9MjxEVm23A
re: divine right of kings–
my MiL has some getting-to-be-former friends who send her all sorts of anti-Obama, ultra conservative, and fundamentalist emails. Some time ago, during the second term of “Duh”, one of these wrote to her and said God raised up GWB to be president.
I forget what Edna said in response, but it wasn’t complimentary.
@Marina – Ever notice that God is powerful enough to raise up certain leaders, but “needs our help and donations” to get rid of others?