The image introduces the slogan, the point of the post. What does that slogan mean, and what does it presuppose?
Aside from how do you define "greatness" as apart from "powerful big mean military to cower others" was America ever great?
During the Civil War, killing each other in large numbers, conscripts forced into it?
When a bunch of rich slave owners saw the European continent in political disarray as an opportunity to decolonize and run their own show? Is that "greatness?"
When robber barons in 1913 created the "Creature from Jekyll Island?" Was that the key step to greatness?
When aboriginal populations were eliminated in a mass planned genocide?
One of the several times when a national government chief executive was murdered by somebody for some purpose(s)?
Next, the presumptiveness of "Make" in the slogan. Aside from the slipperiness of "great" then, for example, did the creation of the "Creature from Jekyll Island," "make" America great; and does that mean it was not great before the step?
"Make" a table or a chair out of wood, that is a manageable proposal. "Make" a nation great is nothing but vague hot air. Aren't Republicans the ones who say let the invisible hand of the market play its magic and all will be optimal? That's the opposite of "make." That's let chance and existing relative distributions of goods and power sort out your life. "Making" a nation "great" "again" sure sounds like central planning; one way or another; and nothing else but central planning. And isn't that what Republicans have traditionally, incessantly, over the last seven or more decades claimed to be evil? So much so it's been their mantra?
Does the cap slogan mean let's be evil and do central planning? What then, precisely; all bullshit aside, is the program, sir?
Back to "great." When, precisely, was America "great?" Ever, in your lifetime? Then why was your lifetime not super great too?
Now, Bernie, without a slogan is only really saying, make America okay.
That's less hubris, less chutzpah, less bullshit; as a goal.
If you're not richer than Trump, who sees America as not great, (else why suggest his slogan as logical), then is America great for you even if not great for Trump? Being well off is great, isn't it? Trump's well off, so why is he complaining?
Bernie is saying if you see how your life might be bettered if he were chief executive of the government, by specific things he says should be done to have a likelihood of bettering the fiscal lives of most people, elect him. It hangs together.
He suggests as a general roadmap look at leveling the distribution of the goodies and how such a concept alien to the interests of cap-wearing billionaires might better things for others, more others, and why not? If you can maximize the well being of more people, what's not to like in doing so? Don't hate anybody, just share and share alike.
That's apart from any handwaving about "great" this or "great" that; or "great" in a big abstract vacuum but where other people identifiable by labels can be hated and railed against because it resonates with people whose lives are not "great" to them by whatever measure makes them disgruntled and where they seek to blame others. Such mischief about other kinds of labeled people being bandied about abstractly without any actual proposals to change a status quo beyond a costly and questionable public works project, one not centralized, one you cannot drive an auto upon or float a boat or barge (as in a canal or through a system of locks in a river), one not aimed at flood control or bettering air and water quality; how is such a questionable public works project going to meet the vague goal "Make America Great Again?"
Near to the last point, what's the billionaire got to really complain against? He has a marriage he likes and successful adult children who admire what he's done and want to be a part of what he will be doing. He has a big airplane to fly hither and yon. What's he got to be complaining of? It seems America has been great for him, so why not shut up and enjoy it?
Bernie is much more practical. He says do specific things. He suggests they make sense for those less fiscally well off than billionaires such as the cap-wearer. There is sense to that.
Last, what's the cap-wearer pointing to? A fool?
______________UPDATE______________
My brother-in-law had some helpful thoughts.
If the slogan "Make America Great Again" means a goal, then the question of when was America great is answered: Before.
Otherwise "Again" would be inoperative and without referential meaning. Likewise, "now" has to mean: not great. Not as great as before, clearly, but not even great now at all. Otherwise the hat would say "Make America Greater, As Before."
It's the pits, not being great. What're all those Trump stage flags to mean every time he speaks, but not-great? That's a bad thing for a flag to stand for.
It brings a great sadness to reach understanding; but that is just part of the human existential dilemma.
Then, Trump is more a socialist and less a believing patriot than Sanders, since Sanders wants to make America okay, now. Trump wants "Great," as well as "Make Again." That implies a greater degree of wilful central government interference with the invisible optimizing hand of the free untrammeled market doing its thing to a pitiful not-great nation, as if central planning were better than free market; and Republicans, real ones, actual belief aside, never say that.
I forgot to ask my brother-in-law whether monetary policy and the Fed. represented socialism since monetary policy meddles with an otherwise free market in negotiable wealth. I also forgot to ask him whether if a border wall/fence were optimal, wouldn't free market action of an unimpeded private sector have already built one? Right size. Right length. Right voltage.
BOTTOM LINE: Per that "make ... great" vs make okay thing, yes, Trump must be more the central planner; the socialist; though short of wanting government ownership of all means of production. That latter point at least makes him closer to the more restrained upper class plain vanilla Republican propagandized mantra dogma than otherwise.
For which we all can be thankful, given his delegate count and polling.
A socialist but at least not a Marxist. Whew! That was close. But the nagging question, why all the flags if he does not think the nation they symbolize is a great one?
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Think of it this way: Sanders is offering modest cabbage, Trump, a splendid bed of roses.
Roses smell better but which makes the better soup?
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
An idiot writing an op-ed Strib elected to publish, showing she and Strib editors either fail to understand the difference between Marxist-Leninist communism and "socialism" with its broader and more relaxed meaning, or they deliberately wish to obscure, dissemble and mislead:
Millennials are the only age group in America in which a majority views socialism favorably. A national Reason-Rupe survey found that 53 percent of Americans under 30 have a favorable view of socialism compared with less than a third of those over 30. Moreover, Gallup has found that an astounding 69 percent of millennials say they’d be willing to vote for a “socialist” candidate for president — among their parents’ generation, only a third would do so. Indeed, national polls and exit polls reveal about 70 to 80 percent of young Democrats are casting their ballots for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a “democratic socialist.”
Yet millennials tend to reject the actual definition of socialism — government ownership of the means of production, or government running businesses. Only 32 percent of millennials favor “an economy managed by the government,” while, similar to older generations, 64 percent prefer a free-market economy. And as millennials age and begin to earn more, their socialistic ideals seem to slip away.
[italics added] What a dunce!
Having Social Security and a VA are socialism in action. Each is: Government making socially impacted decisions aimed at bettering the lives among some within the population, as a carried government expense. Great stuff, Social Security and the VA, so who's to complain?
Easy answer, dunces.
Uneasy answer. Strib editors and the author know better, but are doing straw-man propaganda.
Build the straw man, then blow him down. WTF says "the actual definition of socialism — government ownership of the means of production, or government running businesses" besides dunces or propagandists?
Only an ignoramus would accept that kind of either-or stuff; but we are talking Stirb editors, aren't we.