 |
Can a Socialist Pose as a Democrat? |
 |
I’m going to play the other side of the article that J-Ro wrote a little while ago. Ron Paul is indeed a Libertarian running as a Republican, and while he doesn’t make that as explicit as he could, the people that he is reaching know. Ish is quick to note that a good section of people in America are most likely “closet libertarians”, so the appeal of a major party candidate that attests to ideals that can most definitely called Libertarian (guaranteed rights, small government, fiscal conservatism) will easily appeal to them.
The big question now is if it can go there other way; is it possible for a Socialist — in any stripe or form — to run as a Democrat, and furthermore, appeal to those voters who could be “closet socialists”? More importantly, what percentage of people in America could even be considered closet socialists?
A discussion to decide if Americans are “closet whatever ideology” can wrongly assume a lot from Americans. There’s always the typical characterizations: poor people will be more liberal and vote Democrat, rich people will be more conservative and vote Republican, blah blah blah. Political ideology isn’t that easy, of course; there are many more nuanced facets at play in someone’s political leanings. Those archetypes obviously don’t apply to the staunch pro-Bush farmer living off of farm subsidies and the well-paid Hollywood actors supporting Al Franken. I am going to make one statement, though, which I believe many people, right or left, will agree with.
Americans are political liberals.
Not economic liberals, like Adam Smith, but political liberals. The American people agree with statements like “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (from the Declaration of Independence, of course) [N.B. "Creator" is used very loosely in this sense; many of the Founding Fathers were Deists rather than Christians]. If you remember your high school government class, you’ll recall that these words are very close to the ideas in John Locke’s in his Second Treastie on Government; government should assure to its people life, liberty, and property. America is very much founded on these principles, and from them, what we like to call rugged American individualism.
What is looked upon in America? People living the American Dream, rags to riches, pulling themselves up from their bootstraps. Americans love these stories. People like Andrew Carnegie, Abraham Lincoln, and (maybe a little more disrespectfully) Alberto Gonzales are held in high regard.
This is in opposition to more collectivized ideas of success. Collectivities gaining success aren’t big news-getters in America. CNN doesn’t air stories about food cooperatives or community-based initiatives. If they do, then there’s always a point man (I say man because it usually is a man, thanks-very-much-patriarchy) that is the subject of the success. In Europe, though, there is a stronger idea of collectivism, even though European political systems did piggy back on ideas of Locke, as well as Rousseau and Hobbes (remember high school world history? Or at least European history? Was Mr. Fritz all THAT bad of a teacher?) The strength of political liberalism isn’t as severe in Europe; that “rugged American individualism” is usually interpreted as “arrogant American assholism”.
Anyhow, back to the present. This is why we can assume that a lot of Americans are political liberals, and this is why Ron Paul can do what he does and get that amount of support. People love their rights. This is not to say that collectivists don’t love rights, but parallel to personal rights is the acknowledgment that no person can build an entire success out of the resources they have alone. One person didn’t (and couldn’t) build the infrastructure that surrounds us today. One has parents, friends, co-workers, and colleagues that all contribute to making the Self. Collectivists (including socialists) acknowledge that “no man is an island”, or, as Aristotle put it, “man is a political animal.”
So could a socialist dress up as a Democrat and get by in politically liberal, rugged individualist John Wayne America? I say yes. As long as she plays her cards right. And by that I mean the rhetoric needs to be in place. America still puts a heavy stigma to the words “socialism” and “communism”. So most likely, our candidate isn’t going to say outright that he/she is a communist. People doing that suffer severely in Presidential elections, although they may do better in other races (see below). Right now, there is some socialist rhetoric making its way around the Democratic Presidential candidates (besides Kucinich and Gravel, we expect that from them). Universal health care is on everyone’s tongue, and in the Congress they are debating the expansion of SCHIP (State Childen’s Health Insurance Program) and Medicare. Although recently defeated, there was proposed revisions to current labor laws. People in Washington are starting to take cues from Europe that these are things that need to be seriously considered.
American socialism, however, is going to have to take on a distinctly American flavor. It’ll have to still give the illusion of personal independence and use phrases like “creating equal opportunity” or “starting everyone on the same foot”. It’ll have to incorporate the liberal rhetoric while avoiding outright saying it, at least for now. America is getting more comfortable with the idea of socialism. Teens have never lived at the same time as the Soviet Union. Communism can be phased back in as a legitimate word of debate rather than an outright pejorative. We even have our first socialist US Senator in Bernie Sanders. I don’t think a clandestine socialist candidate is going to be as wildly popular as Representative Paul, but we are moving in that direction. There will be a time when we can say “a spectre is haunting [America]“.
Huey Long anyone?
A Huey Long type figure could never exist today. Circumstances aren’t right, there’s no Depression to make the “every man a king” and “share the wealth” rhetoric resonate as deeply, and it’d be immediately panned with the terms Alex rightly labels pejoratives in our modern political vocabulary; socialist, communist. if someone did run on that campaign there’d be slanderous attacks in the media, from candidates, and wealthy people scared of having the top of their wealth skimmed would pour $ into the campaigns of the opposition. Huey tried the socialist as a democrat, did it, and got shot for it. this is what radical populism gets you. the modern day equivalent probably wouldn’t catch lead, but a barrage of verbal bullets.
Now, our Democrats, who I think historically (ostensibly) have played the role of bringing our governance closer, though by no means close, to a more socialist state, have largely bucked that image of themselves, and have instead chosen to distinguish their party from Republicans on other issues, like raising minimum wage, being anti-corruption (which is tongue in cheek), and anti-war (a war they agreed to wage). They certainly aren’t the ones attempting to force corporations and individuals of vast wealth skim that via a program like Huey’s net asset tax towards wealth redistribution. They’re the ones with that vast wealth, attempting at best, and meekly at that, to roll back tax breaks on the rich.
So, in the hypothetical, yes, a Socialist could run as a Democrat, but then they could be justly called out by other Democratic candidates as being a sheep in wolves clothing. Ironic, but not as ironic as the fact that Vermont, a wealthy state, was the first to elect an avowedly socialist senator.
Going along with what LGS said, the climate in which Huey Long lived was much more conducive to populism, and also communism. The Communist Party of America could gather up hordes of people put out by the Depression, march down to the local government office, and yell, “Why don’t these people have jobs?” The Depression did two things to raise the ire of the common American: 1) it made the reality of poverty and not living comfortably very real (something most Americans can feel worlds away from) and 2) it exposed the failures of the free markets. Only 10 years earlier, Eugene V. Debs, running as a Socialist Party candidate, got 3.4% of the popular vote (about a million votes). Also note that the words “socialist” or “communist” weren’t evil yet; it was before Khrushchev’s speech outlining Stalin’s human rights atrocities and before the common Leftist belief that the USSR had full employment was dispelled.
Bottom line is, we’re in two very different eras, and we need to consider the possibility of this happening in the current era. As for Bernie Sanders, I wouldn’t say that he is actually a socialist, and LGS is right to note that Vermont is a rich, educated state. Sanders’ socialism looks more wealthy and academic compared to the populism that spurred movements (like the American labor movement) in the times of Long and Debs.
I think most democrats ARE socialists. Some are in more of a hurry to achieve socialism than others, but they are all on the same path (government is the solution to every problem). Of course they will never admit it, but have you listened to a speech by Hillary Clinton? It’s a socialist rant minus the socialist buzzwords like “proletariat” and “revolution.”
A proposal for further reading:
By the Way, Communism is Still Bad
A proposal for further reading; Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck. A novel, fiction, but based on the reality of America during a tough time. Collectivist farms and “communist” ideas were Godsends for people reduced to flesh and bones, “walking ghosts” as one character puts it. Where was the philanthropy that the article from hithimagain suggests will take care of those in need? it came in the form of philanthropists, communists, the organizers of collectivist farms, which witch hunters tried to break up.
Communism doesn’t have to be, and shouldn’t be, a governmental redistribution of wealth, and that’s where you show your mistaken notions of the ideals that lie at the heart of Socialism (ideals not yet realized in our world history). It is a collective effort by the people to ensure everyone has an acceptable standard of living. Unfortunately people aren’t willing to do that without governmental intervention at this point. Lord knows I wish they were, but they aren’t.
So, for examples of modern governments who exhibit traces of communism, traces that you equate only with gulags and concentration camps, look at the Nordic countries, where the standard of living is laudable. True their tax rates are onerous, but people there, all people, get to live with dignity and relative security.
To posit that Democrats ARE socialists is not a legitimate argument. government spending (ie government control over our money and lives) in real terms, has increased under Reagan, Bush and W Bush. But maybe spending isn’t the issue, perhaps you don’t have a problem with the government stealing your money, so long as they use it to build million dollar war planes and not give to single mothers, or, God forbid, the arts.
and lastly, PK, don’t lump Hillary Clinton in with the Socialists. It does an injustice to socialism.
I think, as Alex points out, that a socialist would have to be very cautious at the outset. Look at Paul’s campaign. There are very few outright libertarian positions in the Paul campaign. Perhaps his most strident one is a return to the gold system, but that is such an obscure and convoluted topic that most people miss it. Instead, he uses the appealing libertarian language (Constitution, individualism, etc…) without the liibertarian proposals (doing away with taxes, etc…). A socialist would have to do the same thing. As you point out, socialist rhetoric is powerful. So a socialist candidate could use the rhetoric but stay away from extreme positions, at least until in office.