Why Won't Hillary State the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat?

January 06, 2016

Editor

Hillary Clinton refused to explain the difference between a socialist and a Democrat to Chris Matthews in an interview on MSNBC Tuesday.

Clinton, who called herself a "progressive Democrat," sidestepped the question at first, saying this was really a better question for Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

When pressed, Clinton simply replied "I'm not one" before talking about how much she wants to get people to work together.

Glenn shared his reaction on radio Wednesday, saying it fascinated him that she couldn't answer the question---even though it was set up as a "softball question."

"She won't answer that at least for political reasons because the left falls apart," Glenn said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: CNN asked me if there were any questions that I would ask the Democratic candidates during their first debate. And I said, "Yes. What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" I think that's really important to know. What's the difference? Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. Hillary Clinton says she's a progressive Democrat. What's the difference between a progressive Democrat and a socialist?

A fascinating piece of audio. I mean, this is really, truly fascinating. Chris Matthews asked this of Hillary Clinton, and he is asking her in a way to help her. He's not coming to her and saying, "You're a socialist." He's actually trying to get her to say what the difference is. In his mind, there is a real difference between a socialist and a Democrat. I'd love to hear him answer this question.

But he sets Hillary Clinton up with what he believes is a softball question, and she cannot answer it. Listen.

CHRIS: What's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat? Is that a question you want to answer, or would you rather not?

PAT: And how about that too -- how about that qualifier, is that a question you would like to answer, or would you rather not? Because I can let that go if that's too hard.

GLENN: There was a real setup when he was talking about -- you know, before he got to that.

PAT: Yeah. Because he said, I want to help you out.

GLENN: That were his words. I want to help you out. Okay? Then, what is the difference? Do you want to answer that or not?

HILLARY: You know, you would have to ask --

CHRIS: Well, see, I'm asking you. You're a Democrat. He's a socialist. Would you like somebody to call you a socialist? I wouldn't like somebody calling me a socialist.

HILLARY: No, but I'm not one. I'm not one.

CHRIS: Okay. What's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat? That's the question.

HILLARY: Well, I can tell you what I am. I'm a progressive Democrat.

CHRIS: How is that different than a socialist?

HILLARY: Who likes to get things done. And who believes that we're better off in this country when we're trying to solve problems together. Getting people to work together. There will always be strong feelings, and I respect that, you know, from the far right, the far left, Libertarians. But whoever it might be, we need to get people working together. We got to get the economy fixed. We've got to get --

PAT: What a crap answer.

STU: There will always be strong feelings.

CHRIS: I think the difference is -- and Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn't answer the question either. I asked her. Because I know politically you have to keep together -- the center left and the left has to work together. I know all that.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Do you hear that?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I know you don't want to answer this because you have to keep all of you together. But he started with, "I wouldn't want to be called a socialist." So here's what's happening here, in this, he's talking about -- he is saying, "I wouldn't want to be called that. I would want to be called a socialist. What's the difference between the two?"

PAT: She can't.

GLENN: Then he realizes she can't answer that or she won't answer that at least for political reasons because the left falls apart. They're trying to tell us that we shouldn't listen to people like Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz, he is crazy! He's crazy. And they've got to get Ted Cruz out of that party.

However, the leading candidate and one of the leading voices on the left from MSNBC, they're having a discussion that you probably don't even want to say that because you have to keep all of the crazies together. Isn't that interesting? They admit it!

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: While they are telling us we have to separate ourselves from each other.

PAT: Yeah. And her bogus, BS, totally garbage answer on what a progressive Democrat answer is. It's not about people getting together and working together. That's about the government doing things for people. If it -- it's conservatives who are about people doing things together. That's conservatism. We all help one another. We keep the government out of it. And we want them at arm's length. Her deal is she wants the government to do it.

STU: She said that she understands that people have strong feelings, though.

GLENN: She could be saying, bringing people together in groups. For instance, we want the labor unions -- I'm being sincere. We want the labor unions and the Department of Labor to work together.

PAT: Or it could be, we like to bring people to groups and put them behind barbed wire, like they did in World War II. You know, it could be that.

GLENN: Right. Right. The progressives did that. She continues to say, she's an early 20th century American progressive. But really from the roots of the progressive -- they were all socialists. All of them were socialists. The only reason why they weren't communists is because the progressives, those socialists didn't believe in a violent overthrow of the United States government. They thought, "We'll just do it slowly. We'll progress into socialism." So there is no difference between a progressive and a socialist. Anybody who tells you differently is lying to you.

PAT: Communist with patience.

GLENN: Communists with patience. That's all they are.

STU: Yeah. And it's speed of delivery, right?

GLENN: Yes. It's why Barack Obama signed in a -- in gun control yesterday in his executive order because he knows, if Hillary Clinton gets in, she'll leave that in and build on top of it even more gun control. It's progressive. Little, teeny steps to get you where you want to go.

STU: Uh-huh. What is the endgame of Chris Matthews in this clip? What's he doing? Is he trying to say -- well, it's obvious there's a difference between socialists and Democrats. But you can't say it because you have a little political group to keep together. Is there any more to that clip where he explains what the difference is? Does he even say it?

PAT: No. No.

STU: Because I can't detect it anymore. There was a time where I guess you could.

GLENN: Let me say this. Here's good news from the Democratic front. And I can't remember the numbers exactly, but I think 54 percent -- let me just -- let me be crazy wrong in the other direction.

30 percent -- I believe it's 54 percent, but 30 percent of the Trump supporters are Reagan Democrats. So they're Democrats.

That tells me that there are Democrats out there that want an FDR-style Democrat in office. Now, I don't want an FDR-style. That's a progressive. And I don't want an FDR. But there are those Democrats that want an FDR-style president. And they don't buy into this Marxism that is so blatantly obvious with Barack Obama. And they don't like Hillary Clinton.

So a very bad number is 30 percent of the support coming for Donald Trump is -- is from a Democrat. So maybe there's a difference there.

STU: I don't know. I mean, it's funny because you see this --

GLENN: It's an America first -- the difference I think is --

STU: Big government control.

GLENN: Big government control, but America first.

STU: Right. Which is kind of like that old-school union. What the unions used to be back in the day.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. More of a, I hate to say it, national socialist.

STU: Hmm. The question about whether socialists and Democrats are the same is being answered by the market, right?

GLENN: Yes, they are the same.

STU: Right now, Bernie Sanders who is an admitted socialist has 35 percent of the vote. Which you might recognize is about roughly what Donald Trump has out of Republicans. Now, that's about the same percentage. He's sitting here running -- he's in second place in the primary. And he's saying he's a socialist.

Now, she has almost identical policies to him up and down the line, which is why she can't make the distinction. She just doesn't want the branding. But the Democrats themselves are accepting the branding. They don't mind it. They're coming out and saying, "You know what -- and this is a prediction you made long ago, that people would come out and just start saying it. Well, is there a clear example of people coming out and saying it when you're saying -- a guy who has admitted he's a socialist, has a third of the vote from the Democratic Party. So you could say, "Well, there might be a slight difference here or there." But the vast -- the general vibe of the party is we accept these values.

GLENN: And here's the other thing, if you don't think America is a progressive nation, you have to look at 35 percent is going for socialist. Then what is it? 35 percent is going for -- or 40 percent is going for Hillary Clinton. What is her number?

STU: No, she's higher than that. She's in the 50s.

GLENN: She's in the 50s. Okay. So that's one side. 30 percent of the other side is going for Donald Trump. He is a progressive. He is a national progressive. And that's -- that's who he is. So, you know, you've got, what? 50 percent of this country saying, I'm cool with that. I am cool with at least an FDR-style presidency.

PAT: Except I don't think Trump supporters don't think that's what Trump is. At least the Republicans ones.

STU: Right.

PAT: They don't believe that he's the progressive that he is. They don't understand it. They don't get it. They don't care.

GLENN: How? How? How?

PAT: All they care about is his brashness. That's all they care about.

JEFFY: Well, and his management.

GLENN: No, come on. Don't be sarcastic on this. I'm really trying to understand --

JEFFY: They are.

GLENN: I don't think there's a way if you're intelligent at all, that if you're honest at all, if you look at his record of what he's done and said in the past and see him as anything, but a progressive. He said in the Republican debate, nationalized health care works.

JEFFY: Right. Right.

PAT: So you said it in your disclaimer. If you're intelligent at all --

GLENN: Or honest.

PAT: Or honest.

GLENN: I think there's a lot of intelligent people who are hoping that he is what they want him to be.

JEFFY: Right. The guy that will get things done. The management.

GLENN: Right. It's the same thing -- you know, reasonable people who voted for Barack Obama because he was about hope and change. And you talk to them, "No, listen. What is he saying about Jeremiah Wright?" That doesn't matter. He wants to change things this way. And they refuse to listen to it. So that's not intelligence. That's intellectual honesty.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks to guests gathered for a town hall meeting at the Orpheum Theater on January 5, 2016 in Sioux City, Iowa. Clinton, who is leading the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in Iowa, had three campaign stops scheduled in Iowa today. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Why Won't Hillary State the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat?

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

A revolutionary wedge

Negotiating with radicals

What we really celebrated