With plenty of help, Donald Trump is hoping to frame the 2020 election as a choice between “socialism” and four more years of whatever the heck “Trumpism” is.
“Socialist” is a word that has different meanings in different times and places. As he gears up for the next election, Donald Trump has decided to use “socialism/socialist” as a catchall scare term for anything he opposes/anyone who doesn’t support him.
In his State of the Union address, the president spake thus: “Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.” He gave no details on what that meant.
In gushing the day after the speech, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin upped the ante by suggesting that America, at some unspecified time and manner, had been a socialist country but, as he pledged on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” show: “We’re not going back to socialism. We’re going on an economic plan for America that works.“
It would be fun and interesting if someone could ask Mnuchin when America was socialist, and when it stopped being socialist. I have no idea what he would say, but it would be fun.
One of Trump’s leading media admirers, “Judge” Jeanine Piro of Fox News, attacks anti-Trumpers generally as socialists and defends capitalism constantly, without defining her terms very clearly. While she regularly calls Trump’s foes socialists, she’s such a good capitalist that she has been stiffing her lenders and creditors from a 13-years-ago failed Senate campaign, and now seeks to dissolve the last vestiges of her campaign without arranging payment of $600,000 she/her campaign borrowed. In a real capitalist country, maybe she’d go to debtor’s prison.
I suspect that Trump and his minions are going to beat the S-word to a pulp between now and November of 2020. And the fact that there are Democrats, like Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who actually call themselves “socialists” might help the right whip up the red menace (although Sanders and AOC are generally careful to use the phrase “democratic socialists,” which means they are not planning a violent Bolshevik revolution and do, in fact, hold congressional office via multiparty elections).
Will they define ‘socialist’?
But it will be interesting to see how close Trump and his fellow red-baiters come to defining their terms. (I predict they will come nowhere close.) They are just throwing the S-word out there and hoping it scares people.
That’s an old tactic. The income tax was denounced as socialism when first introduced, and maybe it was if you take a very broad view of the term. Same for every increase in it and most every other form of taxation and every government program that takes from those who can most afford it to provide any kind of benefit to those who cannot. Same for Social Security (it even has “social” in its name), and Medicare and Medicaid and Obamacare (especially the “mandate.”)
Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, all quite wealthy and democratic, called themselves “socialist” for years. I don’t know how much they still do. But they still have high taxes and the state pays for benefits that would be decried as socialist if anyone proposed them here. (I shouldn’t say “would” decry them as socialist. Raising taxes and increasing government benefits are routinely decried in America as “socialist.”)
The Scandinavian countries are also, of course, among the wealthiest nations in the world. And they have things (and have had them for years) like universal health care (as do Britain and most of Western Europe and Canada) that are immediately opposed as “socialism” when proposed here. And they are, if anyone is, free and democratic nations.
The United States is virtually alone atop the list of wealthy nations of the world in the portion of its population that lacks health care coverage, which I gather in some circles is a bragging point on behalf of how “free” we are.
A very stretchy term
My main point, which I’ve probably overdone by now but I swear I’ll stop soon, is that the S-word can actually be stretched, with some actual meaning, to cover everything from Social Security to Bolshevism and to whatever you want to call the hideous totalitarian system in effect in North Korea.
I dare to dream of some future dream world, in which we could have a national discussion via election campaign, in which we could discuss how we collectively propose to balance the costs and benefits of taxing and spending, including taxing those who can afford it to pay some evolving package of basic benefits for those who can’t afford it, without passing through red-baiting.
When nonsensical red-baiting occurs and gets in the way of our ability to have a calm, rational discussion of what kind of benefits we want our government to provide, I recall a famously cynical wisecrack from the famously cynical early 20th century American wisecracker, H.L. Mencken, who wrote:
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
Over time, this longer quote came to be paraphrased and misquoted, most commonly in this form: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
Erik, what about the blue-baiting? Conservatives are called racists, bigots, fear mongers etc etc by the left.
The issue you appear to be addressing is free market capitalism vs some form of govt controlled economy (Whether full blown socialism, Marxism, Oligarchy, or some combo of socialism with some capitalist features thrown in).
We’ve had the latter for several decades now and it clearly isn’t working. Places that have full blown socialism aren’t working either. The flow I find in your logic is the claim we must have a taxation system with a welfare state. If we actually went to a free market capitalist system with truly sound money, poverty would be almost non existent. Inflation wouldn’t exist. Govt would be a tiny fraction of the size it is now. We wouldn’t need any of the Welfare type programs nor any of the entitlements.
Bob, you’re right. Socialism doesn’t work. As seen in the United States at least since Reagan, socialism exists for corporations and the rich. Everyone else is left with capitalism. It’s worked so well that corporates profits are skyrocketing, the wealth gap is dangerously stark and wages haven’t risen for decades. I share your concerns on the implementation of socialism in the United States.
Corporations don’t benefit from Socialism and we don’t have that here anyway. If we did, those corps would be owned by the govt instead of Bezos, Zuckerberg et al. What we do have is a crony system where the ultra powerful and rich lobby Congress to get favorable legislation passed.
If we had a free market capitalist system, none of that would be possible and these monopolies would cease to exist. Healthcare costs alone would drop 80% immediately. However that would require a roughly 15% drop in GDP temporarily as spending and investment takes time to shift to other more productive areas in the economy.
You’re wrong. Only in the US could someone believe such garbage.
Actually, Republicans are called racists, bigots, fear mongers etc etc by the left. Modern Republicans are not ‘conservatives’, but one adjective that seems struck from your list would be ‘moral cowards.’
“If we actually went to a free market capitalist system with truly sound money, poverty would be almost non existent.”
Except we had that, once upon a time. It was called the “Gilded Age.” Government was in the pocket of business, taxes were minimal, and the money was backed by gold. Poverty, however, was far from “non-existent.”
If using the term “socialism” is red-baiting, the biggest red-baiters are Bernie Sanders, AOC, and others like them. They openly declare their support for socialism, although they don’t precisely define what they mean by the term. Are they social democrats (as in western Europe) who favor much higher taxes and more expansive social programs, while leaving the means of production in private hands, i.e. a primarily market-based economy? Or do they favor the nationalization of some/all of the major economic players in America, e.g. public utilities, large manufacturers, etc.?
I’m not aware of any elected Democrat who currently supports nationalization, although Elizabeth Warren’s Accountable Capitalism Act would give federal bureaucrats power to override business decisions if those decisions harmed local communities, which means whatever those bureaucrats would deem it to mean. That would in effect be nationalization, and would politicize all major business decisions at the cost of economic efficiency.
It would benefit everyone to go back to what is taught in the first month of any credible Economics 101 course. The United States has a “mixed economy” comprised of both public and private sectors, which have generally separate functions. There is a distinction between liberalism and socialism, and there is a distinction between laissez-faire capitalism and sensibly regulated capitalism with a safety net to smooth off the harsher edges of a pure market-based economy.
The article states that, without cause, Republicans will overuse the ‘socialist’ term in the coming election cycle. He then points out that two high-profile Democrats define themselves as socialist.
If socialist values are percolating to the top of the Democratic party, why is it a problem that Republicans are simply calling them out? Was any evidence given that the Democratic party is not moving towards socialism?
The author closes in saying that we should ‘have a calm, rational discussion,’ while using derogatory terms to describe those on the right such as ‘Whatever the heck Trumpism is,’ ‘gushing’ Mnuchin, ‘stiffing her lenders’ Piro, and generalizes Republicans as ‘red-baiters.’ How could this in any way pave the way for a ‘rational’ discussion?
Overall, the article plasters the right with innuendos while implying that since they have not defined socialism, they have no right to use the S-word: a very odd argument indeed.
Very well stated. I didn’t really focus on the double standard with all the name calling by the author. This is why there can’t be a rational, calm, honest debate on the issue.
There are notable differences between democratic socialism and socialism. Do you know what they are?
That, I think, is Eric’s point; people throw around words with vague meanings, or that mean different things to different people.
As for the US, I don’t see any references to capitalism or socialism (or other isms) in the Constitution. We call our system free market capitalism, but even that has an asterix. The current administration’s infatuation with tarrifs, for example, are a government control on markets that reduces freedom of trade.
What the gov’t has generally done, though without, perhaps, outlining the philosophy explicitly, is give markets free rein, until they run out of control. For example, when large monopolies have killed competition, the gov’t has stepped in, to break them up, or impose limits on them. The Dodd Frank bill attemps to impose constraints on the financial system; hopefully to avoid another financial downturn due to wall street debts gone bad.
Are those constraints excessive? A move down the slippery slope to a state controlled economy, and state-owned means of production? I would say no. But there are many who say yes. I think calling that socialusm represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the word’s meaning. Further, I think such misuse is deliberate, intentional fear-mongering desiged to prey on ignorance. And it’s been working.
But, there are also signs that the s-word is losing its power. Kids these days don’t react to it the way people reared during the cold war do. That may be one explanation for why the GOP’s appeal is mostly to aging white people; and mostly men.
When are we going to start beating the “F” word to death. Fascism. It’s a live a well on the right.
Whatever. The truth is most voters don’t actually care so they beat that dead horse all they want. These attacks on socialism only work against centrists and moderates who don’t support liberal policies and agendas in the first place.
Democrats haven’t been able to defend or promote liberal policies since neoliberals and the “New Democrats” capture the Party in the 1980s. They can’t respond to charges of socialism or even real liberalism effectively simply because on a basic level they support those charges.
Real liberals and liberal agendas have been kept off the stage for decades by Democrats AND Republicans, it was part of duopoly that served the elite. Now it looks like we have something of a liberal resurgence underway, and you will see that actual liberals know how to repel fatuous charges and fear mongering. Unlike centrists and moderates liberals aren’t actually afraid to be called liberals, we don’t run from the designation we embrace it. Republican’s haven’t had to deal with Democrats like that in any significant way for decades.
So sure, you’ll see the “S” word flying around, but bird that few will notice.
Paul, question for you, do you really think that a far-left liberal democatic nominee can win enough votes in the centrist block of voters (left-center, center, right-center) which statistics says represents 68% of the vote, to win in the general election in 2020?
I’m sure you realize that the republican party has no qualms whatever about distorting and exaggerating legislation proposed by democrats – e.g. when Obamacare was being debated in congress, republicans in congress were making wild claims such as Obamacare means democrats want to kill grandma.
So my concern is that these socialist themes, the green deal, medicare-for-all, and worst of all, reparations, will do nothing but make great ATTACK AD material, and great campaign speech talking points for republicans to exploit.
Since the centrist vote needs to be educated and “sold” on those ideas, they already have reservations about those socialist themes, that republicans will then exploit those concerns to win elections in 2020.
I’m old enough to remember Eugene McCarthy, an ultra-liberal who won the nomination and ran for president in the 1960’s – and got creamed.
Is it your feeling that it’s better to lose, and have 4 more years of Donald Trump and his regime, than to choose someone who’s perceived as more moderate, but who has a far, far better chance of actually winning?
I know many some liberals say Clinton was a moderate but she lost in 2016, but I believe that had nothing to do with her being a moderate, it was about the fact that she had so much personal and political “baggage” that it would take a full 18 wheel moving van to hold it.
Henry, ALL of these “socialist” memes are incredibly popular with the American people. You can’t classify proposals that enjoy 58% – 70+% public support as “leftists” unless you acknowledge that a majority of American’s are “leftists”. This is why the old “socialist” fear mongering will fall on deaf ears. Voters aren’t going to be interested in classifying the proposals they support, they’re just going to want to here more details regarding how these proposals work. And the more they, the more they’ll support them.
Voters are exhausted with the failed comprises and gridlock that “centrists” Democrats and Republicans have been delivering for decades. Americans want a government that works, and works for them. You can call that a socialist government if you want, (It’s not true, but you can still claim that) but voters aren’t going to care what you call it, and their not going to vote against something just because you’re labeling it some way. If it works, they’ll vote for it. And if it works, they’ll support it.
So answer your question i.e. will “centrist” vote for liberal candidates? Some will, some won’t. Whatever. Centrists didn’t vote for Trump, and he still won. If YOU’RE a centrist who will vote for Trump instead of Sanders, I hate to tell you this but… you’re not a “centrist”, you’re just a Republican.
They are popular if asked in general terms with no regard in how to pay for it. The populist liberals and self titled social Democrats want nothing to do with the costs when they are made public because they know that the ‘approval’ of such programs will plummet.
We are what, $22 Trillion in debt. It’s funny that so many liberals are blaming Trump on adding to the debt yet they support these programs that will dwarf what the current debt forecast is. There is no mention that the debt more than doubled under the last president with record amounts of revenue into the Treasury because of the large expansion of government.
Why not be up front and tell of the real cost and see what the real approval rating would be?
Hi Paul, I guess I agree with some of your frustration over the status quo, but I don’t see that changing until the republican party loses the house, the senate and the presidency.
There needs to be a greater QUANTITY of liberal congressmen and senators to change anything, not fewer, that are more liberal in their views.
It’s not like democrats haven’t tried hard to get legislation passed in the last two or three decades, they just didn’t have the votes in congress to do so. And crafty Mitch McConnell was there shutting it all down too.
When you say “Will centrist voters vote for a liberal? Some will, some won’t. Whatever” – to me the “whatever” part of that is what seems like the heart of how IMO the democrats are playing their cards poorly these days.
The republican campaign managers are smart – they poll the hell out of everything, they craft hard-hitting attack lines and advertising to hit emotional buttons, and very importantly, instead of taking a ‘whatever’ or ‘who cares’ attitude, I think they are often focused like a laser on that centrist block of voters, and how to win those critical votes.
They know they already have the far-right vote, they know they will win by convincing the centrist voters their guy or gal is great, and the democratic alternative is close to being the spawn of satan!
Steve Bannon was VP of Cambridge analytica, and that company stole 150 milllion facebook users data, ran it thru psychological profiling, and started crafting short powerful campaign themes – one being “Drain the swamp!”, which they found polled REALLY well, and then Trump used the hell out of it.
And It worked – Trumps people were going to vote no matter what on election day.
That is what democrats are up against, so the blase attitude that it’s fine to ignore how the centrist and independent voters are perceiving democratic candidates and positions (“whatever”) is nothing but a great way to lose elections.
And if you don’t win elections, all your great liberal ideas are just ideas, not legislation.
I guess I agree that many of the ‘socialist’ ideas being floated these days by democrats have more appeal with the centrist vote than republicans would like to admit, but I think you’re overstating things when you say they are very popular with the centrist voters.
I think that on those issues the centrist vote is vulnerable to attack themes and ads that portray those positions as catastrophically bad – in other words, I think the jury is out on those issues in the minds of probably a majority of voters, so a lot of care has to be taken to not play into those republican attacks.
And on some of the ideas being advocated, particularly ‘reparations’ – if you think that’s approved of by 58% – 70% of the public, you’re smoking some good stuff brother!
As for me voting for Trump in 2020, that ain’t happening – my dog would make a better president, at least she has a good heart.
But it ridiculous to say that one is a republican just because a particular republican candidate seems like the lesser of two evils in that election.
I voted for Clinton in 2020, but that doesn’t make me a democrat – she was very much the “lesser of two evils”.
I am very much an independent, and just because there’s no one on the ballot in a given election that I’m excited about doesn’t transform me into either a democrat or republican.
It’s not my fault that the two major parties have a death grip on our political system!
Well, in 2018 they found out using images of Scary Brown People crossing the border didn’t work any more. And the Great Deal Maker has utterly failed in getting Kim to give up so much as a hand grenade.
If all you know is the politics of division, you’ve got to find a new boogeyman somewhere.
I’d argue that not all – not by a very long shot – people who like to call themselves “conservative” are also called racists, bigots, fear mongers, and so on by people on the left. For the most part – the Current Occupant of the Oval Office being a prime example – those who are labeled with those terms have lived down to the qualifications necessary to make the labels accurate. Calling Donald Trump a racist is no more a figment of leftist imagination than calling Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, or the local KKK leader a racist. When the shoe fits, etc…
And, as a brief aside, I’ll be impolitic enough to point out to Mr. Barnes that there has never in human history been the sort of “free market capitalism” that he envisions. From the days of the leader of a paleolithic tribe deciding he’d like some new Cowrie shells for a necklace for his latest concubine to Donald Trump deciding he’d like to impose some tariffs to protect his friends who own coal mines, government in every country on every continent has been involved in economic decision-making. The question has never been, and is not now, whether or not the government will be involved in some fashion in the production of goods and services. The question has only been, and continues to be, the degree to which that is the case.
Labeling our current economy as “socialist, with a few capitalist features thrown in,” demonstrates Mr. Barnes’ lack of knowledge about economic theory and policy, as well as a similar lack of knowledge of how both socialism and capitalism work in the real world and in real time.
It’s a jaw-dropper to read that we’ve had a combination of socialism with a few capitalist features thrown in “…for several decades now and it clearly isn’t working.” Perhaps in Mr. Barnes’ universe it’s not working, but he offers no factual support for his rhetorical viewpoint, and in the world I occupy the United States still has the most productive economy on the planet. Low unemployment and a continuing expansion of the economy after a terrible recession brought about by a lack of regulation of the financial industry – even if too many of the rewards are being handed to the wealthy, who don’t need them – argues against Mr. Barnes’ view. Further, he presents nothing to persuade us that the Ayn Rand-ian talking points he presents as a sort of alternative have any connection with real world economics, or real-world societies.
It comes down to actual governing. We can debate socialism/fascism until we are blue in the face and nothing gets done. There is extremism on both ends of the spectrum and that’s where the message becomes convoluted into a ‘nastiness’. Using the terms socialism and fascism deadens and prohibits any discussion. Using these terms is all about stirring up the base and avoids governance.
Basic definition:
‘Socialism’ without a modifier refers to the public ownership of the means of production. The last pure socialist polities that I recall are the original Israeli kibbutzes, where all property was held in common. This was also true of the Oneida community of the mid 19th century and similar social experiments.
What’s referred to as ‘Democratic Socialism’ or similar modifier does not include this essential defining characteristic, and so are hybrid systems, like virtually all Western democracies. All that varies are the relative proportions of public and private control of the means of production.
Republicans have been using the Socialism bugaboo forever. Social Security, the most popular government program in history, was called Socialist by the Republican opposition, Minimum wage laws were called Socialism, Medicare, Medicaid all were going to lead us down the the Socialism path. Of course they didn’t.
The fact that Bernie Sanders (Not a Democrat by the way) and Alexandria Osasio Cortez call themselves Democratic Socialists really doesn’t matter. They are attacked as Socialist by Conservatives on the Right because Bernie and AOC scare them. They see the strength of their message and its been Rightwing tactic for a long time to attack the strengths of their opponents.
The attack serves two purposes, its designed to stir up the Conservative base and force Democrats to react. Typically the Democrat’s response is to fall all over themselves proving that they are not Socialists, or whatever it is Righties are accusing them of being. Sometimes they go as far as denouncing people in their own party, demoralizing their own base and in that way the attack is successful. Usually the media plays along by forcing Democrats to explain their “Socialist tendencies” or whatever.
Younger members of the party, like AOC, are too sharp to fall into the trap, but I fear the old school leadership will follow their usual pattern.
Wow ….A opinion piece is posted and some of the regular posters arise to the occasion to demonstrate with the premise of the author to be accurate. Maybe the bigger question is the attraction by some many to the idea of a “fair shake” to borrow a phrase from the past. That would be wage stagnation, destructively competitive trade policy, well you know the rest..The market economy that some only acknowledge a portion of philosophically has and is not working.
Ah yes the “S” word problem, a rationale discussion, OK Erik, I’ll give it a whirl: Seems I read somewhere.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”
Couple points: “Form a more perfect union” sounds like we should work with one another, not against one another, get along, that sounds a little social in nature , Promote the general welfare, that also has a socialistic kind of a ring to it. “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” Sounds like something we should all strive for, not a me and mine idea, take what you can and leave nothing for the rest. Is this a case of fake preamble to the constitution, or the interpretation is biased or not accurate? Seems Rep. Elijah Cummings nailed it today in his closing statement. You know folks, perhaps some/all of us have to look into our souls, deeply,
I have a perspective to share as an independent that may very well annoy both Republicans and Democrats.
I am watching with horror the Democrats trash their chances in the last few months to win big in 2020 with talk of Green new deals, and medicare-for-all and most damaging of all, ‘Reparations’.
A few months ago, after the 2018 mid-terms victories, I was guessing that that momentum would continue, and guessed that it was 70/30 or maybe even 80/20 that we’d get rid of the worst president we’ve ever had IMO.
Now however, the Democrats have been misplaying their hand so badly the last few months that I think maybe it’s 50/50 at best that the orange haired one will lose his “I play one on TV” president of the US job.
Meanwhile, republicans have jettisoned, in one election cycle, nearly all of their own beliefs to whole heartedly support a lying, narcissistic reality TV show host, and follow him like Nazi “brown-shirts” as he does his best to shred the constitution, the bill of rights, and the free press.
Having seen all this, I’ve come to believe that unfortunately we have right now in our poor country a disturbing political situation that could maybe be described in one sentence this way –
Evil (Republicans) versus Stupid (Democrats)
I’m afraid evil probably beats stupid every day of the week and twice on Sunday, so I’m trying to brace myself for four more years of neo-fascism.
Democrats if they were playing their hand wisely IMO would be focusing on winning the centrist vote for 2020, and avoiding all the extreme socialist themes like the plague, but as we’ve all seen, instead it’s a race to say “I’m more leftist that you!”, and “No you’re not!” from the other candidates.
With the exception of Amy Klobuchar, who I’m pleased to see is not acting like a mindless lemming and would be my favorite choice for the nomination.
She seems to be smart enough to realize that it doesn’t matter if she wins the nomination, if she’s made it impossible to win the general election by embracing socialism with no reservations.
I watched with similar horror and disbelief the 2016 Democratic debates, where the candidates knocked each other over trying to one-up what they wanted to offer illegal immigrants – EVERY SINGLE ONE of the candidates was verbally committing to FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION to the children of illegal immigrants!!! Holy moses…
And of course, as has been the pattern, the latino vote turn-out in 2020 was pretty marginal, so all that pandering for votes was basically for almost nothing.
But the thing is that not a single candidate in that debate seemed to be thinking of was “How is the going to sound to moderate democrats, and independent voters? This whole “Free college for children of illegal immigrants” thing?”
This is what I meant by being “Stupid”.
I don’t mean stupid regarding ‘book smarts’ – I think as a group Democrats are probably very intelligent and quite high on the “book smarts” scale.
What I’m talking about instead is common sense, or “street smarts”.
And I think politics is a rough and tumble game where ‘street smarts’ generally wins.
The smarts that would make a candidate realize they have to win not just a primary, but the general election too, so they’d better be careful to not pander so much to a focus group, or to a lemming-like desire to say “I’m more liberal than you”, that they end up being UNABLE TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION!!
I read one magazine article the other day by a self-professed ‘lefty’ who seemed to think that by choosing an ultra-liberal candidate, we would have “real change” as she put it.
Well, “real change” only takes place when you have won the presidency and have a majority in both houses of congress, you don’t create “real change” by nominating a candidate who ends up losing in the general election.
You can’t win the general election if you don’t win the votes of much the 68% of voters who statistics say are somewhere near the center of the political spectrum (left-center, center, right-center).
That’s the “big piece of the pie”, that frankly neither party seems very interested in currently!
We have the republicans pushing a neo-fascist candidate and political philosophy on us, and the democrats pushing radical socialism on us.
No one is representing what the majority of Americans and American voters want, which is neither!
As a democrat, you don’t win that huge block of centrist votes by advocating and campaigning for reparations.
All you’re doing is giving GREAT attach talking points to Republican candidates by doing so – which means you’re likely to lose the election and will be completely unable to implement your wonderful agenda!
I hope that Democrats will gain more “street smarts” and will start focusing on winning the general elections in 2020 by going for the big block of centrist votes, and realize this rush to socialism is the greatest political gift Donald Trump and his party could hope for.
Please don’t give him that gift Democrats, I don’t know if I can stand to see his face for not almost 2 more years, but 6 more!
One of the problems with “centrism” and other self proclaimed “moderates” or “independents” is that they share the fundamentalist tendency to delude themselves that they are a majority. It’s just THEIR version of the delusion- they substitute “moderate majority” for “moral majority”. Bus alas, they are both: “neither”.
This is more about sitting in a bubble of comfort than it is locating one’s self on any coherent political “spectrum”. The notion that these folks have some kind of expertise regarding reality and political possibility is a rather transparent delusion. If these people had the expertise they claim to have Clinton would be in the White House and Kobuchar wouldn’t be floundering in a sea of mediocrity.
This mindless adherence to such a restricted range of possibility is actually one of the most radical and intolerant features of our political landscape. The reflexive opposition to so many popular off the shelf policies simply betrays the anxieties that conservatives experience whenever their comfort zone is threatened.
These people aren’t in the “center” of anything, they’re not particularly “independent”, and they’re certainly not “moderate”. If they were ANY of these things they would seek compromise with liberals as often as they seek compromise with Republicans. Instead they ALWAYS declare that liberal compromise is political suicide. Whatever.
Whatever your current level of affluence and compromise may be, if it dictates that tens of millions of your fellow American’s must continue to live, die, and suffer in crises while you refuse to even consider common sense policies… you can’t expect to prevail politically.
Centrism is essentially an incoherent mentality that can only produce failed compromise and dysfunctional governance. History has shown repeatedly that dysfunctional governments that fail to work for their citizens are unsustainable.
So here’s what’s going to happen: You guys will continue to whine and complain about the “leftists”… who are getting elected despite your predictions and warnings. And the policies you condemn as unrealistic will go into effect despite your opposition. This is the arc of history, this is the fate of those who resist inevitable change.
Guess I am one of those folks that is “delusional”! However, I don’t think I am in any majority, until after the votes are counted, “Bubble of comfort”? Actually seems more like vice of pain, usually don’t completely agree with either side, “they would seek compromise with liberals as often as they seek compromise with Republicans.” To be honest, I don’t seek compromise, I seek what makes rationale sense, I guess some folks would consider that irrational. ” This mindless adherence to such a restricted range of possibilities” , seems to be that not being a confirmed lefty or nightie allows an additional 180 degrees of latitude, that seems a lot less constricting.
“Centrism is essentially an incoherent mentality that can only produce failed compromise and dysfunctional governance. History has shown repeatedly that dysfunctional governments that fail to work for their citizens are unsustainable.” Not sure how you connect the dot from “Centrism” to “dysfunctional government”.. Recently noticed how, Leftist Venezuela isn’t doing so good, and the Dictators playbook, showed some pretty big failures on the Fascist/Right. Can’t recall seeing anything lately about, Sweden or Canada failing.
Don’t recall complaining “about the “leftists”” lately, more curious on how these big ideas are connect all the dots from what they want to do with how does it get paid for. May end up just like the righties, fiscally irresponsible and put it on the credit card. Hopefully they don’t go that route.
Thank you Dennis, you said very valid things to counter the twisted-logic attacks made on those of us not on the political extremes very well I think.
Paul, as for “leftist being elected despite your warnings and predictions”, do you mean AOC? She’s ONE person. Another from MIchigan, that’s TWO. .
The very large victory that democrats had in the mid-terms, as in picking up something like 40 seats, were primarily because of MODERATE democrats winning.
Those candidates went for the centrist vote, and won as a result.
Because Trump turned them off with his fascist regime, and so a lot of educated republicans said “no mas” and voted for someone moderate on the democratic side. They probably wouldn’t have done that for a more extreme leftist.
Sorry Paul if you don’t like it, but that’s actually what happened – it was NOT a big tidal wave of far-left liberalism that won that big pickup of seats in the house, as you incorrectly seem to think.
There’s a pattern that I think both parties tend to fall victim to – they win a big victory in one election and then get too full of themselves, too confident, and start to think that they can’t lose anymore and overreach in their policies and positions – and then they generally lose in the next election as a result. That’s probably human nature I guess.
Its clear from listening to Paul that he thinks the democrats will probably have a big victory of far-left liberals in 2020, but I think that’s being grossly overconfident.
In particular, when Harris, and Castro, and Warren on all started advocating recently for the ‘reparations’ campaign theme, I could practically hear republican candidates letting out a victory shout of joy, because that is just a great way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2020 on the part of democrats.
One last thing Paul, you claimed that centrists are always tending to vote republican – I’m not sure why you say that.
I haven’t voted republican as long as I can remember, I either vote democratic or libertarian, since IMO, the republican party badly lost it’s way starting with G.W. Bush and his right-turn into Iraq, and then went WAY south into hell with Trump.
I like some of the traditional republican themes, fiscal conservatism for example, but I’ve found that in reality the republicans are just as willing as the democrats to spend us into oblivion, as you pointed out correctly Dennis.
“There’s a pattern that I think both parties tend to fall victim to – they win a big victory in one election and then get too full of themselves, too confident, and start to think that they can’t lose anymore and overreach in their policies and positions”
Actually, Democrats win by default, and then dial back out of FEAR of over-reach, and loose anyways. This is why so little to zero progress has been made, and it’s why voters were angry and desperate enough to vote Trump in the first place. Yes, centrist always blame someone else when they lose, the “over-reach” gambit is a familiar one. But if anyone anywhere had been doing any of that over-reach in the first place we wouldn’t be sitting on the same problems for decades on end. Centrists leave problem on the table our fear of over-reach, and then they lose anyways and we’re all stuck. This is the 2016 election in a nut-shell. It’s Obamacare in a nutshell. It’s our collapsing infrastructure, etc. etc. etc.
So, a guy like Arnie Carlson , can I safely say right leaning moderate, chose not to fix anything like the debt problem he inherited? There is a saying in Israel, you get 3 political parties when 2 Jews discuss politics. For argumentative sake, there are ~ 245M eligible voters of which ~ 56% vote or ~ 137M. Theoretically there are ~ 137 M distinct perspectives on politics, which our political system tries to boil down into perspective A or perspective B. And nothign allowed in between. So those that don’t chose or fit into A or B are considered undecided political rejects that don’t know how to problem solve? .
Dennis, the fact that you have reach back to Arnie Carlson to find an example of one moderate who solved a problem simply illustrates my point.
I don’t know why you keep trying to use other countries as some kind of example, but it’s unlikely that moderates will be more effective at solving problems in Venezuela or Israel than they have been here in the US.
I won’t speak for anyone else but liberalism is and has always has been about trying to be MORE inclusive. Not that liberalism has a perfect record of success in this regard, but it tries. Centrism is an EXLUSIVE mentality. Liberal’s don’t reject centrists proposals simply because they’re centrist proposals, they reject centrism because centrist don’t propose any solutions, they only propose failed compromises that produce perpetual crises. Centrists on the other hand exclude any proposals to the left of their “center” simply because those proposals are… to the left of their center.
I keep bringing up comfort levels for a reason. When I look you and your fellow “centrist/moderate” comments I find it striking that you seem to have this perspective that our political system has been as good it can get; we have no business expecting better. It’s like you guys think everything was hunky dory and okie dokie until Bernie Sanders came along and made problems for HRC. You simply have to have been living a bubble to possess this mentality.
It reminds of a Charlie Rose episode that I frequently recount: Rose had his “panel” of twenty something “journalist” who were covering the different campaigns in 2016 sitting around the table, and they all agreed to be mystified by all the anger voters were expressing: “What in the world do all these people have to angry about?” they asked.
We’re facing multiple, ongoing, and persistent crises in this country. We have a health crisis, an energy crises, infrastructure, education, wealth disparity, racial and gender bias, discrimination, and violence. We have crises with gun violence and homelessness, and drug overdoes’s, not to mention climate change. ALL of these crises (and many more) brewing and worsening over the decades while not a single moderate policy made even a dent in any of them. (the possible exception being Obamacare, which made a “dent”, but obviously fell well short). And you guys were “comfortable”, couldn’t see why anyone would be so angry?
Not only are “centrist/moderates” incapable of addressing any of these crises, they’re literally promising NOT to address or even recognize these crises. Look at Feinstein’s response to the Green New Deal for instance. The “moderate” “solution” is to endorse Republican legislation that ignores the problem. Even if “centrists/moderates” win elections, their constituents still loose, and you’re OK with that? The only people who can be OK with that are those who do not personally have to live with the failed compromises they endorse. Crisis, what crises?
I have read all these replies and have not seen any reference to the private insurance industry. Isn’t this model based on rather “pure socialism”? We all pay in annual premiums and only directly benefit if we make a claim… so basically we are funding the misfortunes of others (and certainly the already very robust insurance industry).
And what about government programs like FEMA? I think most of us support giving aid to disaster victims, but in a total free-market hands-off government, wouldn’t they be left to fend for themselves?
As many have pointed out, the semblances of socialistic programs and services benefit our culture, and is part of the important function of government to promote the general welfare of all.