Ideological Tactical Ambiguity

Leaders enjoy the obscurity of their stance.

"Tactical Ambiguity" is often associated with the US's calculated yet vague stance towards Taiwan. Interestingly, this same term can describe the political manoeuvring of several populist leaders, including Trump, who entered the office with a set of broadly defined objectives but no clear-cut execution plan. This critique, I believe, is even more pertinent when it comes to leaders with socialist leanings.

Once individuals reach the point where they're vying for a prime ministerial or presidential position, they're likely to be well-versed in the implications of their political philosophy. A 50-year-old socialist, for example, should be acutely aware of the history of their ideology. The past totalitarian interpretations of socialism seem to cause them little concern - certainly not enough to drive a reassessment of their beliefs. They generally exhibit an apathetic, if not vaguely positive, stance towards infamous figures like Lenin or Minh, which is a cause for concern. The potential policy consequences of these ideologies are often sobering, with individual freedom often languishing at the bottom of their priority list.

In democracies that value capitalism, identifying as a socialist can be seen as a radical stance. This makes the vagueness of their plans for governing even more unsettling. Handing the reins of power to an untested stranger is one thing, but entrusting it to someone with an extremist ideology is quite another. To openly identify as a socialist today, given a basic grasp of historical events, is a deliberately provocative act.