Or so says the Washington Times:

Republican state party leaders are rebelling against new Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele for failing to dub President Obama and the Democrats as “socialists.” And the rebels insist that the label matters.

Even though Mr. Steele has called his Democratic adversaries “collectivists,” at least 16 state leaders say the term lacks the pejorative punch needed to sway public opinion and want all 168 members of the Republican National Committee to debate and vote on it.

It is the first time in memory that a sitting national leader of the Republican Party has faced a public challenge over his ideological leadership by conservative members of his own national committee.

Critics say it is also a sign of Mr. Steele’s rocky start as RNC chairman and his continuing struggle to assert control of the party’s message since his election in January.

“The threat to our country from the Obama administration cannot be underestimated,” Indiana RNC member James Bopp Jr. wrote Wednesday in an e-mail to the full RNC membership. “They are proceeding pell-mell to nationalize major industries, to exponentially increase the size, power and intrusiveness of the federal government, to undermine free enterprise and free markets, to raise taxes to a confiscatory level.”

Whether one believes that the rebels are correct (about whether or not he is a socialist and whether or not Steele should call him as such) is irrelevant in so far that the controversy proves that Steele has a major problem. He has not been the leader I hoped he would be. When the race for RNC chair was on, I supported Steele because I thought he was a true leader.

Thus far, he has disappointed me tremendously.

In any case, I think that it is true that Obama has been influenced by collective ideologues but I would not call him a socialist. I think he is a social democrat. The two have some similarities, but also many differences. They are collectivist, however, and rooted in the belief that government can and should fix if not all, than at least most problems.

Is it wise to call Obama a socialist? I think it is not. Not constantly, at least. Voters will get tired of the label if they hear it over and over again, especially if they believe it is used incorrectly.

What is more, Obama is still quite popular. Calling him a socialist may actually help socialism become mainstream and accepted. “If that is hardcore socialism,” some will argue, “it is not that bad, is it?”

No – if you are going to use ideological terms, just call Obama a ’social democrat.’