It just occured to me that the most of the labels the left throws around about (the majority of) Americans who oppose Obamacare are some form of “ist” (for example: fascist, racist, alarmist, extremists, ideologically rigid capitalists) aside from the fact all these terms are derogatory – the suffix itself is a way of marginalizing the opposition. Not all ists are bad, but all “ists” are specific and exclusionary. There’s nothing wrong with being , for example, an archeologIST but it is certainly a less inclusive term than “workers” (though the left actually uses that in a strangely exclusionary manner which seems to suggest those who make a lot of money don’t qualify)
Obama, of course, absolutely refuses to istify himself. When his beloved NY Times asked him to define his philosophy in a word ” Is it socialism, is it progressive?” he refused. “I don’t wanna do that.” He, as we know, is for always (rhetorically) for vague things everyone is for like “reform”, “competition”, “lower costs” (he uses the last 2 terms in a completely Orwellian manner but using them nonetheless) he claims the mantel of every positive seeming term (bi-partisanship, post- racial, pragmatic, etc.) regardless of the reality as if this alone will cause the public to associate those qualites with him. It probably works on some.
Anyway basically just a passing observation with regard to the suffix.