Theodore Roosevelt was frequently called a Socialist. The primary reason being that he had an extraordinary sense of fair play. He sided with labor when he thought that the just thing to do, and against capital when he thought they had overstepped their bounds.
I have on occasionally been called a Socialist, generally by folks totally ignorant, at least of the true meaning of socialism. But that criticism includes a vast majority of the right leaning media.
I love Teddy’s response to being called a Socialist:
“Because of things I have done on behalf of justice to the workingman, I have often been called a Socialist. Usually I have not taken the trouble even to notice the epithet. I am not afraid of names, and I am not one of those who fear to do what is right because someone else will confound me with partisans with whose principles I am not in accord. Moreover, I know that many American Socialists are high-minded and honorable citizens, who in reality are merely radical social reformers. They are oppressed by the brutalities and industrial injustices which we see everywhere about us. When I recall how often I have seen Socialists and ardent non-Socialists working side by side for some specific measure of social or industrial reform, and how I have found opposed to them on the side of privilege many shrill reactionaries who insist on calling all reformers Socialists, I refuse to be panic-stricken by having this title mistakenly applied to me.”
If socialism is really defined as not letting the privileged run over the less fortunate, then I am guilty. If socialism is about fair play, then I am guilty. If socialism is about helping the less fortunate, or less able, then I am guilty.
Just for grins and giggles here is the Wikipedia definition of socialism:
“Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.”
My personal point of view is more accurately defined as social democracy, again from Wikipedia:
“Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods. Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century.”
So there you have it.