This debate he and Hillary had over the word socialism has gotten a fair amount of buzz. More than a few seem to think this shows that socialism is now an idea who's time has come.
Melissa-Harris Perry had an interesting panel discussion on her show yesterday. She seems awfully convinced that somehow we can't get beyond racism without some kind of 'socialism'. I'm skeptical of that because I think the word remained ill defined by her.
Scott Sumner saw it also as this showing that the idea of socialism is no longer the anathema it was in the Cold War years-and he sees this as a unfortunate development.
"The more I find out about Bernie Sanders the more I like him. But I just can’t get past that “socialist” label."
" For years people like me have been called “McCarthyite” if we label someone a socialist. And now we are suddenly to believe that socialism in America is perfectly acceptable? So I’m no longer a McCarthyite?"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30886
While Sumner is certainly more economically conservative than me I don't disagree that words matter and you can't just get beyond the term without any questions.
Melissa-Harris Perry had an interesting panel discussion on her show yesterday. She seems awfully convinced that somehow we can't get beyond racism without some kind of 'socialism'. I'm skeptical of that because I think the word remained ill defined by her.
Scott Sumner saw it also as this showing that the idea of socialism is no longer the anathema it was in the Cold War years-and he sees this as a unfortunate development.
"The more I find out about Bernie Sanders the more I like him. But I just can’t get past that “socialist” label."
" For years people like me have been called “McCarthyite” if we label someone a socialist. And now we are suddenly to believe that socialism in America is perfectly acceptable? So I’m no longer a McCarthyite?"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30886
While Sumner is certainly more economically conservative than me I don't disagree that words matter and you can't just get beyond the term without any questions.
As for the McCarthyite issue, I think it depends what you call socialism. I'd say that calling President Obama a socialist is McCarthyite as he's not. McCarthyites tended to see socialists behind every tree. A moderate center left liberal is not a socialist. McCarthy himself ended up calling out Eisenhower himself as a 'conscious agent of the Communist party.'
Calling Bernie a socialist is not McCarthyite, however, as he calls himself one. So a conversation about this is fair game. With Bernie's socialism the question is:
1. Is he really a socialist in the vein of say Hugo Chavez or even Ralph Nader? In Nader's spoiler days he called for things like the nationalization of the Fortune 500.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
2. Or is he basically a reform liberal with a bit of a purist attitude on money in politics?
The answer seems to be 2 based on what he's said. Sumner rightly argues that Denmark is not socialist:
"Bernie Sanders claims he wants to make the US more like Denmark. But Denmark scores higher on the Heritage “Economic Freedom” ranking than does the US. How will Sanders boost economic freedom in America up to Danish levels? He doesn’t tell us. Although Denmark scores only slightly higher than the US, his social welfare plans would push the US far lower on the Heritage Economic Freedom ranking. So to catch Denmark he’d have to make the US massively more market-oriented in other areas. Will we have Denmark’s private fire companies?"
"In a way Bernie commits the same sin as McCarthyites-he uses the socialist term way too broadly. If your claim to being a socialist is wanting to expand Social Security then you are misusing the word."
Denmark and countries like it are not socialist-they just have stronger safety nets. Matt Yglesias points out that this has been done in exchange for much higher taxes not just on the rich but the middle class.
"Various right-of-center coalitions have governed Denmark for about 11 of the past 15 and 21 of the past 33 years, meaning that the general trend toward neoliberalism inaugurated in the early 1980s by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher has also impacted Denmark. The current sky-high (by American standards) levels of Danish taxation actually reflect significant tax cutting under the conservative governments that ran Denmark in the aughts, and the most recent left-wing government of Denmark was a relatively short-lived and unhappy one in which Prime Minister Helle Thorning Schmidt largely found herself implementing an austerity budgeting agenda."
"The key difference came in the past. Between 1929 and 1982, there were nine years of right-of-center governments, three years of occupation by Nazi Germany, and about 40 years' worth of Cabinets led by the Social Democratic Party."
"The main reason the Nordic welfare state is so large today is not that conservative parties can't win, but that universal social welfare institutions tend to be "sticky." The UK Conservative Party has never dismantled the National Health Service, various right-of-center Canadian governments leave their single-payer heath-care system in place, and neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush eliminated Social Security. Even if left-wing governments lose future elections, their accomplishments remain."
Ok, but even if Bernie isn't really a socialist doesn't this show that the word at least is getting more acceptable and that maybe the country is maybe in the future going to support socialism?
If you simply mean by this a stronger safety net, more fiscal spending, and somewhat higher taxes on the rich then I'm all for it. This is basically my agenda as well as Hillary Clinton's and most Democrats.
But this is hardly socialism. If you mean Nader's nationalization of the Fortune 500, I'm pretty skeptical.
Listen Sumner may bemoan while Harris-Perry celebrates the return of the word socialism to American politics but it's less impressive when you consider the historical record.
Bernie has called himself a socialist for years-even though since he's been in Congress, in many ways he's acted like a liberal Democrat. So the fact that he uses the term is nothing new.
Nader used the term in 2000 with a lot more justice and got almost 1 million votes effectively handing the election to W. Now Nader seems to want another Bush. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/the-democrats-presidentia_b_8317074.html
Calling Bernie a socialist is not McCarthyite, however, as he calls himself one. So a conversation about this is fair game. With Bernie's socialism the question is:
1. Is he really a socialist in the vein of say Hugo Chavez or even Ralph Nader? In Nader's spoiler days he called for things like the nationalization of the Fortune 500.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
2. Or is he basically a reform liberal with a bit of a purist attitude on money in politics?
The answer seems to be 2 based on what he's said. Sumner rightly argues that Denmark is not socialist:
"Bernie Sanders claims he wants to make the US more like Denmark. But Denmark scores higher on the Heritage “Economic Freedom” ranking than does the US. How will Sanders boost economic freedom in America up to Danish levels? He doesn’t tell us. Although Denmark scores only slightly higher than the US, his social welfare plans would push the US far lower on the Heritage Economic Freedom ranking. So to catch Denmark he’d have to make the US massively more market-oriented in other areas. Will we have Denmark’s private fire companies?"
"In a way Bernie commits the same sin as McCarthyites-he uses the socialist term way too broadly. If your claim to being a socialist is wanting to expand Social Security then you are misusing the word."
Denmark and countries like it are not socialist-they just have stronger safety nets. Matt Yglesias points out that this has been done in exchange for much higher taxes not just on the rich but the middle class.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/16/9544007/denmark-nordic-model
So there is a real choice to be made. Yet, paradoxically, I'd argue that America is moving in a more liberal direction.
"The key difference came in the past. Between 1929 and 1982, there were nine years of right-of-center governments, three years of occupation by Nazi Germany, and about 40 years' worth of Cabinets led by the Social Democratic Party."
"The main reason the Nordic welfare state is so large today is not that conservative parties can't win, but that universal social welfare institutions tend to be "sticky." The UK Conservative Party has never dismantled the National Health Service, various right-of-center Canadian governments leave their single-payer heath-care system in place, and neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush eliminated Social Security. Even if left-wing governments lose future elections, their accomplishments remain."
Ok, but even if Bernie isn't really a socialist doesn't this show that the word at least is getting more acceptable and that maybe the country is maybe in the future going to support socialism?
If you simply mean by this a stronger safety net, more fiscal spending, and somewhat higher taxes on the rich then I'm all for it. This is basically my agenda as well as Hillary Clinton's and most Democrats.
But this is hardly socialism. If you mean Nader's nationalization of the Fortune 500, I'm pretty skeptical.
Listen Sumner may bemoan while Harris-Perry celebrates the return of the word socialism to American politics but it's less impressive when you consider the historical record.
Bernie has called himself a socialist for years-even though since he's been in Congress, in many ways he's acted like a liberal Democrat. So the fact that he uses the term is nothing new.
Nader used the term in 2000 with a lot more justice and got almost 1 million votes effectively handing the election to W. Now Nader seems to want another Bush. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/the-democrats-presidentia_b_8317074.html
There was a time when the word socialism was much more common. We had La Guardia the three time mayor of NYC who to this day his name is honored with a huge airport any any number of roads and schools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiorello_H._La_Guardia
You had Upton Sinclair. In 1912, GOP President William Taft didn't rule out socialism is that was what was needed. The unions would call themselves socialists.
Ironically post the New Deal the term went out of favor. Bernie was successful electorally but he was never able to get anyone else in his party.
So you can certainly overstate its importance. Now if liberalism is making a comeback as it seems to I'm all for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment