[FSR: The 40% is indeed roughly the ratio of government expenditure to GDP. True, commercial enterprises as such are not a big part; but that government does account for such a large part of the economy signifies that government today subsumes a lot of functions that used to be in the private sphere -- when government was typically more like 4% of GDP.]

[FSR: In that case the US has been pretty socialistic for quite some time, as government controls around 40% of the economy directly (and heavily regulates a lot of the rest).]

Assad: He is out to destroy his country — unless it is democracy a government represents destruction of its country. (And the other side is close to true, too; if it is a democracy then it is almost always not destruction.)

[FSR: Assad is out to milk his country. But what often happens in such cases is that the rulers become so removed from reality that they can't draw a line between milking and destroying. Assad's Barbara Walters interview showed he inhabits a parallel universe.]

On a surprisingly related note: The NYT has an op-ed that claims that many business interests in Syria support Assad, because they fear that the rebels will not be as business oriented. I don’t know how accurate or significant this is.

[FSR: A regime like Assad's often creates a web of vested interests, "rent-seeking" businesses that thrive by dint of government favor & collusion. Any business that succeeds in Syria must do so by playing the regime's game. Of course those businesses support the regime and fear its fall!]

By my eye these two candidates are quite similar on many things; and they are both reaching in an effort to differentiate themselves.

[FSR comment: No, Obama is not "out" to destroy our country. Nor is Assad "out" to destroy Syria. I am not suggesting precise equivalence.
How do you define "socialist"?]