I read every word. Did you? The author's "reasoning" - inasmuch as it can be described as such, distinct from a simple gut feeling about how Trump views America - would apply even more to medieval monarchies or fascist Italy than to current developments in America. The author, seemingly some kind of libertarian or 'classical liberal,' has opted for a private definition of socialism to mean everything they hate - centrally-planned economies dominated by state action - despite that having little or no correspondence to the actual definition which is social control, not oligarchic or dictatorial control, of the means of production.
Bro that's like saying that it's not a square, it's a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.
"We aren't saying the economy should be controlled-top-down by
elites, we are just saying it should be controlled-top-down by... the same people that run our government...."
In your own comments of course you've committed your own error in imagining that "top-down government-driven re-shaping and control of the economy for political ends is an inherently leftist approach"
Because in the United States, it is. Where you err here:
despite the fact that historically and by and large down to the present right-wing politics has generally with few exceptions been associated with more hierarchical ideals
Is in folding Old World throne-and-altar style Conservatism in with discussion of the American context, which is generally focused on whether or not we should
conserve the classic liberal values of our Founding, or cast them aside in favor of a "Progressive" top-down organization of the economy in particular.
(the original French monarchists, patriarchal views of traditionalist conservatives, the in- and out-groups of nationalism and fascism, capitalism's winners and losers etc.) while left-wing politics has generally albeit with somewhat more exceptions been associated with more egalitarian ideals (the original French republicans, socialists, feminists, civil rights movements, environmentalism and so on).
Because if there is any movement in history who isn't marked by identifying a class of people for public eradication, it's the French Revolution
Leftist movements are generally fine with hierarchy - it wasn't conservatism who created intersectional pyramids - it is simply that they tend to prefer to at least claim to be inverting traditional hierarchies and replacing them with others. The Kulaks Must Be Eliminated As A Class. Having a degree (or having an immediate family member with a degree) would get you killed by the Khmer Rogue.
Humans create hierarchies - always have. Tribalism is a thing - always has been. Ironically - given your objection - it was the Christian assumptions of the Enlightenment and Classic Liberalism (both of which,
generally, are not exactly celebrated on the Left, but which are at least notionally honored in American Conservatism) that ever gave us the idea that man might be fundamentally equal.
