Absolutely. Faux News will run the Socialist tag without the word "democratic" almost as often as the tell their viewers that his being Jewish is not an issue, thereby labeling him as a Jew-Socialist. It won't matter in the Red states, as those are lost, but it could cost us some swing states and the election.
16
So many Americans never cease to amaze me. Why do you have to pin labels on everything? Does everything and everyone have to be either black or white when dealing with the important problems in the country? For once, why not forget the labels and just listen to someone who cares and really just wants to do the right thing.
31
And if all of that wasn't confusing enough, this article doesn't even seem to acknowledge that social democracy and democratic socialism in turn are two separate, distinct things. Just go to Germany and ask the partisans of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Left Party, formerly the Party for Democratic Socialism (PDS). They don't like each other much.
2
Fidel Castro started saying the same things... ...
2
Bernie Samders democratic socialist as defined by him is development for all and not just for the top 1%. I do not know what is there that is difficult to understand.
21
To me this discussion needs to center on fairness. Both the republicans and the democrats want people to pay taxes. It's just a matter of where those tax dollars come from and what they are used for. People like Bernie want big corporations and the extremely wealthy to pay more then they're paying now. The republicans want those same groups to pay less then they're paying now. Bernie wants to use that tax money to pay for a saftey net for the less fortunate and to provide things like Medicare for All (affordable healthcare for everyone) and higher education for people who can't afford it. The republicans like to distribute corporate welfare to the cable, oil and gas industries, banking and credit card companies etc. If conservatives don't like socialism they would be all for ending Corporate Welfare, especially like the Mining Law of 1872 and even the ACA. America's so called free market is already rigged.
22
Maybe it might be more appropriate if Bernie called himself an "Ethical Socialist" rather than a "Democratic Socialist." But voters who already have trouble grasping the concept of what socialism actually means might get really confused when they find out that there are different types of socialism.
2
I found this article more illuminating as to what Hillary Clinton is bringing to the table: crumbs.
19
Disputing the socialist label on the basis of the degree of difference between Hillary and Bernie is pointless. Bernie is socialist, whether you call him a Democratic Socialist, a Socialist Democrat, or whatever. What you should be questioning instead is whether Hillary, who favors some socialist policies, just won't own up to the appropriate label. "Very liberal" is just a euphemism for a cowardly politician to hide behind.
3
What is wrong with Americans going to work in any job, enjoying good wages, health care for all, four weeks paid vacation, maternity leave, and being able to retire on a aged pension for all? What exactly is the American dream, work til you drop and pray you don't get sick doing it?
35
What the... ? This article doesn't include the most important single piece of news on this front, which happened in the last week. Bernie Sanders famously answered this question on Meet the Press last Sunday. "Are you a capitalist?" "No. I'm a Democratic Socialist." That "no" means he ain't taking us to Denmark, where politicians could indeed be called "Democratic Socialist Capitalists". He's taking us to a place that has never yet existed - a socialist state with democracy. (And I'm sympathetic to the argument that is hasn't yet existed because such states tend to fall into totalitarianism, quickly or instantly.)
3
Everyone but Bernie is making a big deal about the label. Once again, the media avoid the issues. We deserve better. What Bernie isn't is not is that he is not owned by the money of his donors. Think up a term for that and say it every time you mention his name.
15
What also bothers me is that he's coöpting the Democrat label, one he has never in his entire life used, because it makes it easier to get elected.
1
Its well-documented that these words have been used in various ambiguous ways, and in a lot of propaganda of course. Understandings about these terms has varied across time, around the world, and by context.
The terminology here references some of the most important theories and doctrines in economics and the social sciences ...... so why only reference Mr. Konczal? So much is available online, like the various Chomsky videos that discuss these things. Not that long ago, there were a lot of self-described "socialists" in this country, and many (even-nonreligious) jewish kids here have lived for a summer or more on a "kibbutz" in Israel. And academics specializing in what "Capitalism" really means (as a historical economic theory primarily attributable to Adam Smith) describe something different than our own economic system.
Hillary (and Robert Reich) think capitalism needs to be saved from itself, and seem optimistic about doing that. I hope they have a sword of Valerian steel to permanently slay that dragon!
Bernie's a unique person, and it didn't help me to hear that "he's a socialist" in my coming to be familiar with who he is. People can try to be more of what Chomsky calls, simply, a "Truist." Other labels have very high prejudicial impact and, as noted, I'm not convinced people share any kind of clear understanding about them.
The terminology here references some of the most important theories and doctrines in economics and the social sciences ...... so why only reference Mr. Konczal? So much is available online, like the various Chomsky videos that discuss these things. Not that long ago, there were a lot of self-described "socialists" in this country, and many (even-nonreligious) jewish kids here have lived for a summer or more on a "kibbutz" in Israel. And academics specializing in what "Capitalism" really means (as a historical economic theory primarily attributable to Adam Smith) describe something different than our own economic system.
Hillary (and Robert Reich) think capitalism needs to be saved from itself, and seem optimistic about doing that. I hope they have a sword of Valerian steel to permanently slay that dragon!
Bernie's a unique person, and it didn't help me to hear that "he's a socialist" in my coming to be familiar with who he is. People can try to be more of what Chomsky calls, simply, a "Truist." Other labels have very high prejudicial impact and, as noted, I'm not convinced people share any kind of clear understanding about them.
1
In the days of FDR and the 1950's, this was called "Managed Capitalism."
10
Thank you for finally providing useful facts and an explanation of Bernie Sanders's platform!
1
At last a helpful elucidation of Sander's politics in the Times.The People
seem to understand what he is offering and they know enough to respond
with enthusiasm.The human race needs laws and regulations to restrict
our greed and correct social injustice.This man has to win.
seem to understand what he is offering and they know enough to respond
with enthusiasm.The human race needs laws and regulations to restrict
our greed and correct social injustice.This man has to win.
12
Bernie can't explain himself. How will he communicate to the general population if elected?
Senator Sanders' position is purely social justice. Social"ism" is identified by most Americans as the idea of a soviet style "social democracy". The Senator does himself an injustice using the code word "socialist" because the synonym (in the minds of the public and the capitalist class) is socialism.
There is no need to add "Democrat" to his position, since he is in that caucus anyhow.
The label he chooses is to separate himself from the Capitalist Democrats, which is a majority of the Democratic Party currently. This shift to the right occurred under the Bill Clinton administration. Secretary Clinton carries this baggage willingly.
The label that best fits Senator Sanders is "New Deal Democrat". We Americans have seen the FDR New Deal corroded by the acid breath of a 1899 style Capitalist class. (Captains of industry??) We sit in a boom/bust economy dictated by shear primitive profit motives, unfettered by a toothless federal government. Neither Clinton nor Sanders can accomplish anything w/o a Democratic House/Senate. Sanders will have coat-tails. Clinton... not so much.
There is no need to add "Democrat" to his position, since he is in that caucus anyhow.
The label he chooses is to separate himself from the Capitalist Democrats, which is a majority of the Democratic Party currently. This shift to the right occurred under the Bill Clinton administration. Secretary Clinton carries this baggage willingly.
The label that best fits Senator Sanders is "New Deal Democrat". We Americans have seen the FDR New Deal corroded by the acid breath of a 1899 style Capitalist class. (Captains of industry??) We sit in a boom/bust economy dictated by shear primitive profit motives, unfettered by a toothless federal government. Neither Clinton nor Sanders can accomplish anything w/o a Democratic House/Senate. Sanders will have coat-tails. Clinton... not so much.
13
Why do some people find it hard that a government should be run like a business?
On the flip side if a business was operating like a government and a socialistic government, most, if not all business would fail, thus leaving barely any crumbs (taxes) for the state (government) to feed off of to survive...
So I can understand why in the "common sense" liberal socialites would object since common thinking is not always "intelligent thinking".
So until there is more of a mindset and an emphasis to promote business thrive, rather than always looking to hinder the progress in the form of raising taxes, closing loop holes or unrealistic laws and oversight, logically governments needs all types and sizes of business to survive...
On the flip side if a business was operating like a government and a socialistic government, most, if not all business would fail, thus leaving barely any crumbs (taxes) for the state (government) to feed off of to survive...
So I can understand why in the "common sense" liberal socialites would object since common thinking is not always "intelligent thinking".
So until there is more of a mindset and an emphasis to promote business thrive, rather than always looking to hinder the progress in the form of raising taxes, closing loop holes or unrealistic laws and oversight, logically governments needs all types and sizes of business to survive...
1
You asked a good question.
One answer might include that fact that economists, sociologists and political representatives have identified 42% (or 90 of 225 years) of America's history since the 1% takeover in 1790 as Panics, Depressions (small and great), recessions, inflation, stagflation, etc. The other years were identified as the years America was at war at home or abroad. A few years (and apologies to those who would add others) include the continuous wars against Native Americans, racial wars against former black slaves, wars against women and wars against immigrants. Other noteworthy wars include Mexican-American, Civil, Spanish-American, WW I and WW II, Korean Conflict, Vietnam, Iraq I and Iraq II, Afghanistan, and the Cold War of over 70 years.
So-called capitalism apologists have a lot of explaining to do while socialism cannot be faulted in America.
Socialism applied to the benefit of the masses is wrong according to the 1%. Socialism for the benefit of the 1% is good according to the 1%, its media representatives and baseless faith leaders.
But the discussion is needed because socialism is neither good nor bad; it just is another way to describe a set of conditions and actions which can be applied to the benefit of all Americans.
It is needed because 1% own or control the wealth and income of America. Americans should have the opportunity to compare the reality and the rhetoric, the hate message from the love message, the value of live after birth.
One answer might include that fact that economists, sociologists and political representatives have identified 42% (or 90 of 225 years) of America's history since the 1% takeover in 1790 as Panics, Depressions (small and great), recessions, inflation, stagflation, etc. The other years were identified as the years America was at war at home or abroad. A few years (and apologies to those who would add others) include the continuous wars against Native Americans, racial wars against former black slaves, wars against women and wars against immigrants. Other noteworthy wars include Mexican-American, Civil, Spanish-American, WW I and WW II, Korean Conflict, Vietnam, Iraq I and Iraq II, Afghanistan, and the Cold War of over 70 years.
So-called capitalism apologists have a lot of explaining to do while socialism cannot be faulted in America.
Socialism applied to the benefit of the masses is wrong according to the 1%. Socialism for the benefit of the 1% is good according to the 1%, its media representatives and baseless faith leaders.
But the discussion is needed because socialism is neither good nor bad; it just is another way to describe a set of conditions and actions which can be applied to the benefit of all Americans.
It is needed because 1% own or control the wealth and income of America. Americans should have the opportunity to compare the reality and the rhetoric, the hate message from the love message, the value of live after birth.
10
The problem is that the GOP does have one coherent thing to say that makes sense: The government is less efficient than the private sector and, if not more susceptible to incompetency, corruption and waste, certainly is no better.
Just look at the convictions in the Chicago and Atlanta school systems at the highest levels, or the New York State Legislature, or Amtrak.
Just look at the convictions in the Chicago and Atlanta school systems at the highest levels, or the New York State Legislature, or Amtrak.
1
That "the government is less efficient that the private sector" is true in some areas---but compare Medicare's overhead with that of most for-profit health insurance companies. In some respects, we hold politicians and public employees to a higher standard. We do not hear about CEO's and other executives consorting with prostitutes; it hardly follows that they do not. As for waste, in business we call that overhead.
16
This whole discussion makes me want to shake my head in lamentations over the lack of public debate since the mid 1970's about "political economy." I thank Mr. Konczal for his clarifications. But I think it would be useful to consider FDR and the New Deal and ask where they fall on the social democratic "spectrum." Although the American Right has done their best - see Amity Shlaes attack on the New Deal - to blur the lines, FDR was not a socialist, but it is very fair to say he laid down the benchmarks for American social democracy with the New Deal's programs, a pragmatic and experimental native response to the collapse of capitalism in 1929-1932.
Michael Harrington tried his best to lay a more theoretical ground for our left in the late 1970's by his reinterpretation of Marx, but was overwhelmed by the country and the Democrats moving to the Right.
My test for today's updated social democrats, which I think would disqualify Ms. Clinton in some respects: do you support FDR's Second Bill of Rights (not just the Four Freedoms) the first of these rights being that to a decent job, and secondly, do you support a new Civilian Conservation Corps to fight global warming, heal old environmental wounds to land air and water, and to rebuild the nation's physical infrastructure, as green as possible? That's my test, not fighting over socialist-social democratic distinctions.
I'm a Green New Deal social democratic and I support Sanders.
Michael Harrington tried his best to lay a more theoretical ground for our left in the late 1970's by his reinterpretation of Marx, but was overwhelmed by the country and the Democrats moving to the Right.
My test for today's updated social democrats, which I think would disqualify Ms. Clinton in some respects: do you support FDR's Second Bill of Rights (not just the Four Freedoms) the first of these rights being that to a decent job, and secondly, do you support a new Civilian Conservation Corps to fight global warming, heal old environmental wounds to land air and water, and to rebuild the nation's physical infrastructure, as green as possible? That's my test, not fighting over socialist-social democratic distinctions.
I'm a Green New Deal social democratic and I support Sanders.
38
A couple weeks ago Bob Kuttner wrote "Bernie Sanders Is About as Radical as Harry Truman" - http://prospect.org/article/bernie-sanders-about-radical-harry-truman I'd say that's about right.
18
Bernie's and Hillary's rhetoric may not now be so different, but follow the money. Is Hillary ready to bite the corporate hands that feed her? Yes, most of it is going to the Republicans, but she still has split loyalty between her voters and her donors.
Secondly, if Hillary is nominated, you can be sure that even her rhetoric will move to the right. Her move to the left has less to do with whatever she "really" believes (whatever that is) than fear of Bernie and his followers. If Bernie is nominated, he will continue to say what he has said throughout his life.
Ultimately, even if he loses, as is highly probable, he has accomplished already more than one could have anticipated: educated the American public about the true nature of our political/economic system, moved the Democratic Party to the left, and furthered the development of a viable progressive, social democratic left, within and outside of the political party structure.
Secondly, if Hillary is nominated, you can be sure that even her rhetoric will move to the right. Her move to the left has less to do with whatever she "really" believes (whatever that is) than fear of Bernie and his followers. If Bernie is nominated, he will continue to say what he has said throughout his life.
Ultimately, even if he loses, as is highly probable, he has accomplished already more than one could have anticipated: educated the American public about the true nature of our political/economic system, moved the Democratic Party to the left, and furthered the development of a viable progressive, social democratic left, within and outside of the political party structure.
31
Sanders is a Social Democrat and by international standards on the right edge of that spectrum. In the U.S. Social Democrats often call themselves Democratic Socialists because the Social Democratic label was claimed by Cold War-era "State Department socialists" who supported the war against Vietnam. Also many Democratic Socialists were further to the left several decades ago than they are today. That is certainly true of Sanders. His identification as a socialist is not as confusing as suggested here. It is a term, like many other political labels, that has multiple competing meanings. One of the great things about his campaign is that it puts the question of what socialism is back on the agenda.
13
What about EVERY citizen a capital owner of wealth-creating, income-producing productive assets of our future economy?
“Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates the means of production, distribution and exchange should be OWNED or regulated by the community as a whole.”
This essentially means the abolition of private property, owned by individuals. Of course Bernie Sanders nor anyone else campaigning for the presidency is advocating the abolition of private property; regulation yes, in order to look out for each other.
To deal with critics of American socialism, Bernie Sanders should acknowledge that he does not advocate the abolition of private property in the means of production, the very core definition of socialism, but wants economic and social policies that will empower EVERY child, woman, and man to acquire significant wealth-creating, income-producing capital asset ownership simultaneously with the growth of the economy, and prevent the further concentration of capital ownership among the tiny minority who now OWNS America and wields tremendous political power, as a result.
“Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates the means of production, distribution and exchange should be OWNED or regulated by the community as a whole.”
This essentially means the abolition of private property, owned by individuals. Of course Bernie Sanders nor anyone else campaigning for the presidency is advocating the abolition of private property; regulation yes, in order to look out for each other.
To deal with critics of American socialism, Bernie Sanders should acknowledge that he does not advocate the abolition of private property in the means of production, the very core definition of socialism, but wants economic and social policies that will empower EVERY child, woman, and man to acquire significant wealth-creating, income-producing capital asset ownership simultaneously with the growth of the economy, and prevent the further concentration of capital ownership among the tiny minority who now OWNS America and wields tremendous political power, as a result.
7
It’s not about direct control of production but control of distribution and commerce by perfect regulation.
What is wrong with a little better redistribution of wealth. Bernie as with Justin are not suggesting nationalizing the Concrete industry as the late Venezualan Leader attempted.
Just those with more cash than they know what do with might be taxed a little higher so the fire trucks can get to a fire without having to go around a decrepate road.
Just those with more cash than they know what do with might be taxed a little higher so the fire trucks can get to a fire without having to go around a decrepate road.
16
You made your choice for Canada yesterday, I hear. Please allow us the courtesy of making our own choice for the United States. Thank you.
Can you cite an instance of a fire truck actually having to do this? If not, this is an example of the simplistic, over-inflated rhetoric of many Sanders supporters that has turned me off to his campaign.
After watching a video by plutocrat Nick Hanauer I would say that Bernie's brand of democratic socialism is similar to his prescription of 'middle-out capitalism.
Bernie said he was not a casino capitalist. He didn't say he wasn't capitalist in any way. In fact Democratic Socialism doesn't remove capitalism. It puts checks on capitalism by creating a thriving middle class and retaining more power for the people. #BernieSanders2016
Bernie said he was not a casino capitalist. He didn't say he wasn't capitalist in any way. In fact Democratic Socialism doesn't remove capitalism. It puts checks on capitalism by creating a thriving middle class and retaining more power for the people. #BernieSanders2016
17
When Marx and Engels helped to found the German socialist party in the 19th century they entitled it "the German Social Democratic Party". The party is still called that today. Socialist and Social-Democrat meant the same thing. It is of course good to distinguish between socialists and Leninist communists, but dancing on a distinction between "democratic socialist" and "social democrat" doesn't do much to clarify anything.
2
The weirdest thing about this fight is that Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator, is not clear on what he is. even he doesn't know. weak end at bernie's! LOL! this poor chap can't figure out if he's on foot or horseback. he has no clue what email is, clearly thinks ALL email is personal! he, however, shrewdly followed Lincoln's well-turned words "Better to remain silent and be thought and look a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" regarding his tussle over understanding what it is.
2
You are talking about a different Senator Sanders, the one that doesn't exist.
To understand Denmark consider this news flash from July 11 2015:
"A new government policy has brought out tens of thousands of university students, more than at any time since the period of unrest in the late 1960s, to protest in front of the Christiansborg Palace, where parliament meets.
The policy? To make them graduate on time."
There is a fine line between support and indulgence , with Danes , having voted right , trying to role back indulgencies of the former socialist government.
"A new government policy has brought out tens of thousands of university students, more than at any time since the period of unrest in the late 1960s, to protest in front of the Christiansborg Palace, where parliament meets.
The policy? To make them graduate on time."
There is a fine line between support and indulgence , with Danes , having voted right , trying to role back indulgencies of the former socialist government.
1
@Woof,
The United States is "Bizarre-o World Denmark", then. There is NO tolerance for any "indulgence" to the average citizen. However, to the ruling corporate oligarchy "In indulgence, we trust."
The average American doesn't expect a free ride, just a fighting chance. And not scare tactics.
Bernie Sanders for President 2016!
#FeelTheBern
The United States is "Bizarre-o World Denmark", then. There is NO tolerance for any "indulgence" to the average citizen. However, to the ruling corporate oligarchy "In indulgence, we trust."
The average American doesn't expect a free ride, just a fighting chance. And not scare tactics.
Bernie Sanders for President 2016!
#FeelTheBern
Franklin Roosevelt said that "A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it 'Fascism', sometimes 'Communism', sometimes 'Regimentation', sometimes 'Socialism'. But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical".
Thanks to his programs the years following his unprecedented 4 successful presidential elections were the greatest expansion of the middle class in the history of humanity and it happened in this country. We were a socialist country. If we ever want to be a great country again, we need to wage a war of information to let the timid people know that socialism is not only good but is necessary if we ever want that kind of prosperity EVER again. You can be sure that the corporate media will try to confuse and stoke fear to avoid this because of the merciless unbounded corporate greed that has overtaken this once great country.
Thanks to his programs the years following his unprecedented 4 successful presidential elections were the greatest expansion of the middle class in the history of humanity and it happened in this country. We were a socialist country. If we ever want to be a great country again, we need to wage a war of information to let the timid people know that socialism is not only good but is necessary if we ever want that kind of prosperity EVER again. You can be sure that the corporate media will try to confuse and stoke fear to avoid this because of the merciless unbounded corporate greed that has overtaken this once great country.
36
This somewhat glib article pinpoints what the Democratic debate and its alleged results indicate. Bernie Sanders has integrity but lacks verbal flexibility. Hillary Clinton is totally flexible and has no integrity at all. Her statement that capitalism has value but needs to be reined in is perfect.....however, we have every reason to believe that she would use that line to get elected and would not rein in the corporatist government that is destroying us. Bernie's reliance on Denmark is too narrow....too easily disparaged as a specific analogy. However, Bernie does not appear to render the US Denmark, but rather to protect the institutions, brought in by Franklin Roosevelt, that were created in response to harm and that kept us from harm until Bill Clinton undid the Glass Steagall Act.
We have a media that is playing with words to our disadvantage.
Lets look beyond the words to the integrity and credible policies of the candidates.
We have a media that is playing with words to our disadvantage.
Lets look beyond the words to the integrity and credible policies of the candidates.
22
I second this comment!
he did not singeled out Denmark only...he continued with Nordic countries...
When people understand the socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive and that Demark the country that Bernie holds out as an example actually ranks higher on the Economic freedom scale of the Heritage foundation than the US, as do Switzerland New Zealand and nearly a score of other countries. They will begin to understand the concept, that somethings governments can do better than companies, that does not mean a free ride but an insurance pool of every American will get a better deal than millions of insurance pools and scores insurance providers.
15
The word socialism means something different to a liberal Democrat than to a tea party Republican. But the same is true for capitalism. Some hear the word and think robber barons, global corporations, union busters, and a mix of laissez-faire and cronyism that allows oligarchs to run the country for their personal benefit. Others think of small businesses, plucky and innovative entrepreneurs, a cornucopia of consumer choices, and free markets. Neither perspective is completely accurate.
9
I think the take away message here is that, by and large, Sanders and Clinton agree on ideology with the major exception being health care. Sanders believes health care should be made a right and guaranteed by the government. Clinton does not. This should be more of a focus in the coming debates, as there are pros and cons to each side.
4
Nah. Clinton is a Wall Street tool who will say whatever she needs to to get elected. Sanders is a moderate social democrat who sincerely believes what he says. The difference is considerable.
I like Sanders. He is compassionate and honest.
He is absolutely correct to raise taxes and, in particular, to tax pollution. And he is right that money in politics is contributing to rigging the game against everyone but the top 1%.
But I don't think free college for everyone is a good idea. And his ideas for reigning in the financial system do not go far enough.
He is absolutely correct to raise taxes and, in particular, to tax pollution. And he is right that money in politics is contributing to rigging the game against everyone but the top 1%.
But I don't think free college for everyone is a good idea. And his ideas for reigning in the financial system do not go far enough.
4
I think he means free college for those qualified. Not everyone.
Free college wouldn't necessarily be for everyone. E.G., in some European countries, only those academically qualified will get a free ride. Others may attend, but pay their own way.
One drawback (I don't know if this is still true) is that students must declare their field of study when starting university, and it was very difficult if not impossible, to change, unlike in the US, where students can change majors at any time.
One drawback (I don't know if this is still true) is that students must declare their field of study when starting university, and it was very difficult if not impossible, to change, unlike in the US, where students can change majors at any time.
Sincere question - why do you think free college is a bad idea?
Also his proposal is free public education, not free college for everyone. It's a small difference, but the end result is not paying for every American to go to school. It's paying for any American that wants to and can keep grades up to go to a public university, if they choose. So the scale is smaller than sending every kid to k-12 like public schools do today.
Also his proposal is free public education, not free college for everyone. It's a small difference, but the end result is not paying for every American to go to school. It's paying for any American that wants to and can keep grades up to go to a public university, if they choose. So the scale is smaller than sending every kid to k-12 like public schools do today.
2
For those of us who remember what life in Russia and Eastern Europe looked like prior to 1989, there is no Democratic candidate that looks very socialistic. By the late 80s, socialism was something sad and failing and nobody wanted it.
But now something odd has happened. By constantly labeling Obama--who was elected by healthy margins twice--as a socialist, and by calling the entire Democratic party "socialist,'" Republicans have made socialism respectable again.
If they're against it, it must be pretty good, right?
In much the same way as the religious right made apathetic heterosexuals care deeply about the rights of gays, the Republicans have forced the population that finds them repugnant (i.e., a majority) to take another look at socialism. Much of our population is too young to recall the failures of the past, and too broke to enjoy the fruits of casino capitalism. And right now, those Scandinavian countries look good in a lot of ways.
But now something odd has happened. By constantly labeling Obama--who was elected by healthy margins twice--as a socialist, and by calling the entire Democratic party "socialist,'" Republicans have made socialism respectable again.
If they're against it, it must be pretty good, right?
In much the same way as the religious right made apathetic heterosexuals care deeply about the rights of gays, the Republicans have forced the population that finds them repugnant (i.e., a majority) to take another look at socialism. Much of our population is too young to recall the failures of the past, and too broke to enjoy the fruits of casino capitalism. And right now, those Scandinavian countries look good in a lot of ways.
16
The North Western Europeans version of socialism always looked good. We've changed OUR minds when we realized that "We the People. . ." in the U.S., have had socialism since the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the late 19th Century. Hydro power is socialistic in this country as is Medicare, Social Security, All of the alphabet commissions that regulate the commerce of the United States, etc.
Distinctions like "democratic", "capitalist" and "socialist" are meaningless.
In the U.S., we have always had a great deal of socialists, some of whom are lifelong Republicans.
E.g., in the west Republican rancher socialists graze their cattle on public land and pay almost nothing because if they had to pay fair market value, they couldn't afford to be ranchers, and beef prices would skyrocket.
Also, if the ranchers owned the land, they'd have to pay property taxes.
And much of the forested land in the western U.S. is worth a lot more for homes and tourism development that it is for raising cattle.
Our policy has been to subsidize food for more than a century on the belief that a well-fed population won't rise up in revolt. And we have been so good at feeding our citizens that even poor people suffer from obesity and related diseases.
In the U.S., we have always had a great deal of socialists, some of whom are lifelong Republicans.
E.g., in the west Republican rancher socialists graze their cattle on public land and pay almost nothing because if they had to pay fair market value, they couldn't afford to be ranchers, and beef prices would skyrocket.
Also, if the ranchers owned the land, they'd have to pay property taxes.
And much of the forested land in the western U.S. is worth a lot more for homes and tourism development that it is for raising cattle.
Our policy has been to subsidize food for more than a century on the belief that a well-fed population won't rise up in revolt. And we have been so good at feeding our citizens that even poor people suffer from obesity and related diseases.
7
Poor people are sometimes obese because they can't afford protein and fill up on cheap pasta and potatoes.
The distinction between a Capitalist Democrat and a Socialist Democrat is a matter of priorities. The latter prefers a healthy and educated nation to one with the most massive and expensive Military in the world.
10
Bernie Sander's entire ideological stance is that the government is more efficient and better at allocating resources than the private sector. Given how I've seen the government operate: Congress, FBI, military, VA, TSA, IRS, DOJ, just to name a few - I am no so sure I agree with his standpoint
2
Dennis,
I would suggest trying government of the people by the people before criticizing government. A government of and by the 1% certainly caters to the welfare of the few at the expense of the many. Are you old enough to remember how the interstate system was financed? High taxes financed it but real estate developers and auto makers were the biggest beneficiaries. Today your government is simply an arm of big business. When big corporations scrape every drop[ of money it can off the top it is little wonder it fails miserably Our Federal and Provincial governments manage our pension portfolios and because our government hires the best and the brightest they consistently outperform the private sector. There is still room for private insurance in our healthcare but the most important part is run by top notch professionals who keep costs down while providing excellent service. We have those who complain but 80% of Canadians believe our healthcare system is one of our proudest accomplishments.
I would suggest trying government of the people by the people before criticizing government. A government of and by the 1% certainly caters to the welfare of the few at the expense of the many. Are you old enough to remember how the interstate system was financed? High taxes financed it but real estate developers and auto makers were the biggest beneficiaries. Today your government is simply an arm of big business. When big corporations scrape every drop[ of money it can off the top it is little wonder it fails miserably Our Federal and Provincial governments manage our pension portfolios and because our government hires the best and the brightest they consistently outperform the private sector. There is still room for private insurance in our healthcare but the most important part is run by top notch professionals who keep costs down while providing excellent service. We have those who complain but 80% of Canadians believe our healthcare system is one of our proudest accomplishments.
16
Guess you missed roads, water, sewers, nuclear technology, devices that use transistors, computers, and the internet.
1
It is hard not to agree with Bernie on that issue
Invest in infrastructure more.
Regulate the banks more.
Save the climate more.
Help the poor more.
Tax the rich more.
That's what he wants. Not that crazy.
He's not a communist dictator.
He's not opening gulags for forced labor.
He's not banning the accumulation of wealth.
He's not assuming state control over all businesses.
He's not turning America into the USSR or North Korea.
He's pretty much just a normal liberal.
Regulate the banks more.
Save the climate more.
Help the poor more.
Tax the rich more.
That's what he wants. Not that crazy.
He's not a communist dictator.
He's not opening gulags for forced labor.
He's not banning the accumulation of wealth.
He's not assuming state control over all businesses.
He's not turning America into the USSR or North Korea.
He's pretty much just a normal liberal.
33
I'm not sure what the Rush Limbaugh buzz is about here. I like public schools, universities, roads, public safety, water, sanitation, etc. The "capitalist paradise" lies a days bus ride south of Denver (Juarez, Mexico). While I have offered many fans of Mr. Limbaugh a $35 one way bus ticket to the place where no one pays taxes, no one has taken me up on it. Denmark = socialism, Mexico = capitalism.
23
Sanders' form of "socialism" is simply different in degree (not in kind) from what is currently practiced in the US. An economy that depends on the economic engine of capitalism for almost all production, but has the interests of the state integrated throughout the stages of production via regulation which is derived through a process of legislation, negotiation, and lobbying; otherwise known as "corporatism" or "crony capitalism."
5
Of course, Bernie is a Democratic Socialist Capitalist just like FDR and his cousin Teddy. And so are millions of other Democrats, Republicans and Independents. And Bernie by being so has encouraged a regressive progressive and caring libertarian like me to run for Congress to be there for him and a lot of us, by sitting IN the aisle! For more about that I welcome advice from across the political spectrum about my YALE4Congress.com run for the Congressional Aisle.
6
Well done, Yale. Run hard, run a vigorous campaign. Play down the puns, and punch the issues: Our disposable incomes continues to shrink to the point that necessities are treated as luxuries. The costs of our medicine makes following prescriptions next to impossible; to the point we self medicate.
Our children, lost in the whirl of consumerism, have become either listless and self absorbed, or throw themselves into extreme activitie, the very nature of which take them out of the mainstream and so indifferent to the notion of a real and diverse community.
Stay clear of terms such as "regressive progressive" that go in one ear and out the other. Stick to the facts of mothers watering down milk and, when offered lower gas prices, buy bigger cars, sold at impossibly low costs and interest free, and delay investments in sustainable or clean home heating alternatives. Talk about men and women in the 50s and 60s who are part of what Robert Sawyer called the "Tossed Generation." Men and women who years ago disappeared from the "ranks" of the unemployed/underemployed.
Talk, man, about false consciousness, that pits those who have against those who don't.
Don't ask for advice. You know the score. Open up people's eyes, ears and most of all their hearts. This is the key to your winning that seat in Congress that you deserve. Don't paint yourself as an idealist but a a realist, who has lived and loved and won and lost and know the game and want to set things right..
Our children, lost in the whirl of consumerism, have become either listless and self absorbed, or throw themselves into extreme activitie, the very nature of which take them out of the mainstream and so indifferent to the notion of a real and diverse community.
Stay clear of terms such as "regressive progressive" that go in one ear and out the other. Stick to the facts of mothers watering down milk and, when offered lower gas prices, buy bigger cars, sold at impossibly low costs and interest free, and delay investments in sustainable or clean home heating alternatives. Talk about men and women in the 50s and 60s who are part of what Robert Sawyer called the "Tossed Generation." Men and women who years ago disappeared from the "ranks" of the unemployed/underemployed.
Talk, man, about false consciousness, that pits those who have against those who don't.
Don't ask for advice. You know the score. Open up people's eyes, ears and most of all their hearts. This is the key to your winning that seat in Congress that you deserve. Don't paint yourself as an idealist but a a realist, who has lived and loved and won and lost and know the game and want to set things right..
Is the article knowingly attempting to confuse people or, are people truly so right leaning that they have conveniently put from their minds the undeniable fact that we Americans live in a dual system of socialism and capitalism. A system of social democracy, or democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders has not turned his back on regulated capitalism. His allegiance is to our socially democratic system. He is saying that the system has become unbalanced to the detriment of America's dual contract that all Americans have the opportunity to progress through their own efforts, while providing all Americans socially enhancing, life and death services, and I agree with him. There is no room in a successful social democracy for oligarchy. Mrs. Clinton played dirty, which is not uncommon for her, while Sanders treated her honestly, very fairly during the debate, actually went over the top to protect her, considering that she didn't know whether to stand up or sit down before Sanders stated the policies that comprise his presidential platform, which she latched onto and is now using as her platform, with a of myriad loopholes and qualifiers for one percent corporate thievery and another of Mrs. Clinton's personal favorites, the military industrial machine. The Clintons are not progressives, or social democrats, as they have proven many times over.
11
I don't believe there are any current Republicans who would agree with the 4 points it takes to qualify as a social Democrat. And this article minimizes a significant difference between Clinton and Sanders: he is running on views he has espoused all his life while she appears to be temporarily espousing very liberal views while acting in pro-corporate ways that contradict them.
11
The issue is and always will be - the gov't has to check the capitalists and the capitalists have to check the gov't - if either party gains too much control, greed will take over. Yes, gov't employees/institutions can be greedy too.
In the 1990s-2000s, most people would agree corporations/capitalists had too much power - but Bernie's dramatic grandstanding makes me weary that we'll end up being pulled too far the other way.
In the 1990s-2000s, most people would agree corporations/capitalists had too much power - but Bernie's dramatic grandstanding makes me weary that we'll end up being pulled too far the other way.
3
I agree, such labels as "socialist" or "Democratic socialistic" are so poorly defined that they only serve as convenient dog wistles to condemn someone by implying they are like the former USSR.
What can we call current policies that allow mining companies to stake a claim on public land, then extract minerals with no payment to the public who own that land? And then, when the mining companies are done, they often leave behind a contaminated mess that the government does own, and ends up spending millions to clean up. This is what happened recently in New Mexico with that horrible leak of mine waste into the Animas River as the EPA was spending your tax dollars trying to stop the constant leakage of heavy metals it was causing. Sounds like Corporate Welfare to me.
And what do we call the US Forest Service practice of spending your tax money maintaining forest roads so lumber companies can cut down forests for which they do not pay the full cost to maintain those roads or manage forest fires? Maybe we could call this corporate socialism?
And what do we call it when companies who extract oil from state owned land are taxed by the state of Alaska, who then turn this money over to state citizens in the Alaska Permanant Fund? Sure sounds like socialism to me, and a good idea!
What can we call current policies that allow mining companies to stake a claim on public land, then extract minerals with no payment to the public who own that land? And then, when the mining companies are done, they often leave behind a contaminated mess that the government does own, and ends up spending millions to clean up. This is what happened recently in New Mexico with that horrible leak of mine waste into the Animas River as the EPA was spending your tax dollars trying to stop the constant leakage of heavy metals it was causing. Sounds like Corporate Welfare to me.
And what do we call the US Forest Service practice of spending your tax money maintaining forest roads so lumber companies can cut down forests for which they do not pay the full cost to maintain those roads or manage forest fires? Maybe we could call this corporate socialism?
And what do we call it when companies who extract oil from state owned land are taxed by the state of Alaska, who then turn this money over to state citizens in the Alaska Permanant Fund? Sure sounds like socialism to me, and a good idea!
9
Hey, don't pin the mine leak on New Mexico. While the state is deservedly on many "Worst" lists (poverty, education, child welfare, etc.), the nasty mine leak was in Colorado; it just flowed down the Animas through New Mexico....
1
DDW
I stand corrected! Thanks
I stand corrected! Thanks
This not-all-that-liberal voter loves Bernie's message! Bring it on.
9
Mr. Sanders likes and supports capitalism only insofar as he can steal the gains of commercial entities to pay for his insane social programs.
2
You mean social programs and policies that exist literally everywhere else in the developed world (and a good portion of the less-developed world)?
13
"Insane social programs"? What, like public education, public roads, public utilities, public parks, public transportation, public libraries, social security, medicare, the American armed forces?
A. These are not insane--they represent generations of American efforts to promote what's called "the common good."
B. They are not "his" programs. HE doesn't own them--we, all of us, do.
C. Taxation is not the same thing as theft. When corporations--or individuals, for that matter--avoid their share of taxes, that IS theft.
A. These are not insane--they represent generations of American efforts to promote what's called "the common good."
B. They are not "his" programs. HE doesn't own them--we, all of us, do.
C. Taxation is not the same thing as theft. When corporations--or individuals, for that matter--avoid their share of taxes, that IS theft.
2
The only ones who are insane are the people who defend the rights of multinational corporations over people. I bet you're also for the TPP and can't wait for those private tribunals to award a multinational a few billion bucks of taxpayer money the first time a new environmental law impedes on an oil conpany's "right" to drill, too!
Obviously Mr. Sanders is best described as a "liberal democrat" or "very liberal democrat" (in the phrase suggested by the author."
More seriously is that he will soon be best described as "also ran" unless he starts presenting himself credibly as a policy wonk in foreign and domestic domains alike. Also, there is a certain charm in his particular style of Brooklyn angry bluster, and the populistic vibe it conveys, but he overplays it and should polish up: he comes off a bit much like a Donald Trump of the left.
He should address the Tea Party types directly and show that his grassroots, Main Steet (esp versus Wall Street) orientation is closer to their principles, interests and convictions than what the Relublicans offer, and remind mainstream Dems leaning toward Clinton that most of these middle and working class voters appreciating Tea party and Trump populism would never vote for Clinton but could for Sanders if he learns to address them.
Sadly, Sanders is settling for preaching to his choir and blustering as if at a OWS rally. Time for some maturation to a more presidential approach, and FAST. Attack Hillary cogently, calmly, in a Presidential tone and posture, otherwise, game over.
More seriously is that he will soon be best described as "also ran" unless he starts presenting himself credibly as a policy wonk in foreign and domestic domains alike. Also, there is a certain charm in his particular style of Brooklyn angry bluster, and the populistic vibe it conveys, but he overplays it and should polish up: he comes off a bit much like a Donald Trump of the left.
He should address the Tea Party types directly and show that his grassroots, Main Steet (esp versus Wall Street) orientation is closer to their principles, interests and convictions than what the Relublicans offer, and remind mainstream Dems leaning toward Clinton that most of these middle and working class voters appreciating Tea party and Trump populism would never vote for Clinton but could for Sanders if he learns to address them.
Sadly, Sanders is settling for preaching to his choir and blustering as if at a OWS rally. Time for some maturation to a more presidential approach, and FAST. Attack Hillary cogently, calmly, in a Presidential tone and posture, otherwise, game over.
1
You have not been paying attention. Sanders is out there speaking to Americans of all persuasions, ages, races, creeds and political parties. Even conservatives show up to hear him - and they like what they hear. And saying he has to "mature" to a more presidential approach is patronizing and insulting.
There's a huge outcry against The ACA because it takes an incremental step towards universal health insurance... not universal health care but universal health insurance. The opponents want to keep health insurance "private". Fine... let's privatize everything... no more gov't TSAs at the airports, no more gov't ATC's... in fact no more gov't supported airports and privatize the FAA by the way. No more gov't supported roads, streets or highways which will reduce or eliminate the DOT. No more gov't supplied education. Maybe we keep the currency folks and the DoD, maybe not but surely no more SEC, HHS, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, CDC, or any other agency not expressly required by the constitution... And, apply the same strict approach to the state and local gov'ts. It's not even clear that Congress needs any staff either. FBI and IRS maybe but surely no DEA or NIH or NRC or any of the other myriad agencies like the BLM, BRec, USFS, DOI, NPS, NTSB and so on.
Or, maybe universal health care suddenly doesn't feel so bad?
Or, maybe universal health care suddenly doesn't feel so bad?
5
NYT, this has been overall a helpful, clarifying, issues-focused article about Bernie Sanders - the first in recent memory, despite repeated requests from readers. It contrasts pleasantly to the NYT's usual caricature-like treatment of Mr. Sanders that focuses on anything but his policies. So thank you, for doing your jobs as journalists...
Having said that, why is this article buried deep in the bowels of the NYT home page, despite being published only today, October 20th? Please give this article the prominence it deserves by making it clearly visible on the home page.
Having said that, why is this article buried deep in the bowels of the NYT home page, despite being published only today, October 20th? Please give this article the prominence it deserves by making it clearly visible on the home page.
5
The average conservative thinks any public good is socialism (e.g. public highways, public sewers, public libraries, clean air rules, clean water rules, etc. etc. etc.) when in reality, they have no concept (and likely no experience) living or working in a truly socialist country. What really makes me laugh at conservatives is the massive numbers of them that belong to rural cooperatives here in the heartland and vigorously defend these cooperatives against "government intrusion" and private competition, not understanding that the organization and structure of these cooperatives is almost a textbook definition of socialism. Bernie Sanders support of infrastructure is right on target but conservatives can't or won't understand it or make the connection with cooperatives.
7
Since it all has to go through the Congress anyway, you have to think of it more as a direction. Bernie Sanders is signaling that as a politician he is going to prioritize the advancement of the general population over the advancement of the wealthiest few citizens.
7
Thank you Josh Barro and the collaborators who contributed to this article: you have provided a much needed correction to the popular American conceptions of socialism.
In truth, socialism, as a transformation of society, is defended by very, very few people in this world. Here in Europe parties calll themselves socialist or social democratic, but none call for the dismentlement of capitalism and its replacement by a planned economy. People want a stronger government role only where needed or desirable, especially in healthcare which is both cheaper and better in countries like France!
In truth, socialism, as a transformation of society, is defended by very, very few people in this world. Here in Europe parties calll themselves socialist or social democratic, but none call for the dismentlement of capitalism and its replacement by a planned economy. People want a stronger government role only where needed or desirable, especially in healthcare which is both cheaper and better in countries like France!
2
It would seem that Mr. Sanders doesn't even know what a socialist is, which would in turn indicate he is not very intelligent, very confused or both. Which would then suggest to me that he is not really cut out to be President.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders focus to repeal Citizens United, create a National Holiday to increase voting turn out and conduct his campaign to reach to EVERYONE, not only likely voters. These and srrong regulation of banking institutions and strengthening of welfare programs is what separates a Social Democrat like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders to a Hillary Democrat. Because without the support of a strong democracy you cannot accomplish socialist programs that will reflect the values and needs of the people. To use the same example as Sanders, Denmark accomplishes to bring out 80 % That IS the secret of the success of Nordic Socialist Countries. It is a shame it isn't the same in the country that coined WE THE PEOPLE.
3
Has it ever occurred to anyone at the times that articles such as this one, parsing the term "social democrat" and measuring its influence on "the race" is less helpful to its readers than another article which might illuminate the real proposed policy differences and previous records of the candidates? How many of these type of articles has the times published? "All the news that's fit to print" indeed.
2
"For a democratic socialist, that’s not good enough; instead, health care should simply be provided to everyone without charge, removing the profit motive from health care."
OMG , that would mean that the Exceptional USA would become like the rest of the developed world ! They are all Commies who want our guns & freedom.
What can we do ? I know build another fleet (($13 B for a carrier alone) or more F35`s at $80 million each plus to maintain and operate them nearly $1 trillion over their working lifetime, according to the GAO.
Any rational person (non-GOPer) can see that we must do something. (That something is to elect Bernie.)
And it could climb even higher,
OMG , that would mean that the Exceptional USA would become like the rest of the developed world ! They are all Commies who want our guns & freedom.
What can we do ? I know build another fleet (($13 B for a carrier alone) or more F35`s at $80 million each plus to maintain and operate them nearly $1 trillion over their working lifetime, according to the GAO.
Any rational person (non-GOPer) can see that we must do something. (That something is to elect Bernie.)
And it could climb even higher,
5
The only thing that Bernie wants to nationalize is your wallet. Let's leave it at that, tells you everything you need to know.
1
As far as I'm concerned, he could call himself a Chinese aviator. I'm voting for him.
7
Konczal is wrong: it's not that Bernie's agenda is Hillary's up to 11, it's that Hillary's is Bernie's down to 3. Hers is a muted agenda without any real ambition, sincerity, or follow-through, cherry-picked from more and more of Bernie's bullet points as he gains in percentage points.
Hillary, like a dubious Disney Pocahontas, paints her campaign with all the colors of the wind.
Hillary, like a dubious Disney Pocahontas, paints her campaign with all the colors of the wind.
4
NY Times, perhaps you should listen to Krugman to learn about what built the middle class through what is referred to as the great compression...
"Economist Paul Krugman gives credit for the compression not only to progressive income taxation but to other New Deal and World War II policies of President Franklin Roosevelt. From about 1937 to 1947 highly progressive taxation, the strengthening of unions of the New Deal, and the wage and price controls of the National War Labor Board during World War II, raised the income of the poor and working class and lowered that of top earners. Krugman argues these explanation are more convincing than the conventional Kuznets curve cycle of inequality driven by market forces because a natural change would have been gradual and not sudden as the compression was."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Compression
"Economist Paul Krugman gives credit for the compression not only to progressive income taxation but to other New Deal and World War II policies of President Franklin Roosevelt. From about 1937 to 1947 highly progressive taxation, the strengthening of unions of the New Deal, and the wage and price controls of the National War Labor Board during World War II, raised the income of the poor and working class and lowered that of top earners. Krugman argues these explanation are more convincing than the conventional Kuznets curve cycle of inequality driven by market forces because a natural change would have been gradual and not sudden as the compression was."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Compression
1
I'd love to live in a "We The People" country instead of the "Despicable Me" country the GOP has advanced.
This country should grow up and get over labels and listen to what the man has to say.
It's more than obvious from the last few decades what's been going on around here isn't working for the majority.
Get money out of politics and the propaganda will end.
This country should grow up and get over labels and listen to what the man has to say.
It's more than obvious from the last few decades what's been going on around here isn't working for the majority.
Get money out of politics and the propaganda will end.
7
Whether Mr. Sanders or Ms. Clinton (or both!) the choice will be very much more liberal than any of the candidates on the Republican side, and a House for whom even Paul Ryan is too liberal.
Actually, some goods and services ARE so important that they should never be commodified. Among them are schools, higher education, health care, a minimum income, child care, care and housing for the elderly and disabled and our public buildings and spaces.
Am I only only one who is sick to gagging over how our lives have been infiltrated 24/7 by marketing? We are human beings, not walking ATMs for commercial interests.
Am I only only one who is sick to gagging over how our lives have been infiltrated 24/7 by marketing? We are human beings, not walking ATMs for commercial interests.
8
Sounds to me like NY Times is backing Hilary. Talking about what he considers himself to be is just another distraction from his real stance on the issues.
"He just wants more taxes and more regulation than Mrs. Clinton does."
This is a misleading statement that implies people will feel the hit from this. The bottom line is he is creating many legitimate revenue generating plans that only end up hitting the richest of the rich, who are just mad that they will have to pay their fair share of taxes.
He supports small and medium sized business, as does "Hilary". The key difference she eluded from discussing is her stance on and relationship with big businesses. It's easy to distract the viewers and persuade them into thinking she supports everyone's ability to start a business. She doesn't let it be known that she supports these businesses who make an industry with incredibly high barriers of entry for these "mom and pop" businesses.
She should be held accountable for Murder for how she handled Benghazi.
"He just wants more taxes and more regulation than Mrs. Clinton does."
This is a misleading statement that implies people will feel the hit from this. The bottom line is he is creating many legitimate revenue generating plans that only end up hitting the richest of the rich, who are just mad that they will have to pay their fair share of taxes.
He supports small and medium sized business, as does "Hilary". The key difference she eluded from discussing is her stance on and relationship with big businesses. It's easy to distract the viewers and persuade them into thinking she supports everyone's ability to start a business. She doesn't let it be known that she supports these businesses who make an industry with incredibly high barriers of entry for these "mom and pop" businesses.
She should be held accountable for Murder for how she handled Benghazi.
Democratic Socialism has a rich history. Few articles will tell you that Martin Luther King, Jr., Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Cornel West, Helen Keller, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, and -- one of Sanders' idols -- Eugene V. Debs, all identified as democratic socialists. Sanders is in good company.
10
Finally!! Thank you Josh Barro. As a Bernie supporter- I even held a Sanders Debate watching party at my home- I have been tearing the remaining hairs out of my head wondering why he calls himself a socialist when everything he says about economics, and comments about the countries he admires (Denmark, Sweden, etc.) indicates that he is a social democrat. Is he holding on to the socialist label because in his more ideological youth he was "pure," ignoring the complexities of the real world? Nostalgia? A desire to shoot himself in the (left) foot? A notion that some day, in the glorious future, everything will peacefully, equally and productively be run by the collective will of all the people, without any amassing of power by elites?
Fortunately, given the 25 years or so since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Republican labeling of anything decent (e.g., Social Security) as socialist, and the rampant greed of Wall Street- impoverishing the nation, leading to rampant inequality, and, oh yes, causing the near collapse of the world economy in 2007-8- the term socialism has been somewhat detoxified. Indeed, in a recent poll of 18 to 29 year olds, socialism had a nearly equal favorability rating as capitalism.
Bernie, I don't know if this will help you get elected (but given the "damn Emails" comment, you clearly care more about issues than winning at all costs), can you please tell us what you really believe and why you insist on calling yourself a socialist?
Fortunately, given the 25 years or so since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Republican labeling of anything decent (e.g., Social Security) as socialist, and the rampant greed of Wall Street- impoverishing the nation, leading to rampant inequality, and, oh yes, causing the near collapse of the world economy in 2007-8- the term socialism has been somewhat detoxified. Indeed, in a recent poll of 18 to 29 year olds, socialism had a nearly equal favorability rating as capitalism.
Bernie, I don't know if this will help you get elected (but given the "damn Emails" comment, you clearly care more about issues than winning at all costs), can you please tell us what you really believe and why you insist on calling yourself a socialist?
7
Bernie can't be a Social Democrat until we have a party of social democrats! Until that happens he is an Independent, running as a Democrat, who claims to be a Socialist. You can't be a party of one...
It is genius of Sanders to call himself a socialist. He has beat the Republicans to the game. Now that doesn't mean that they won't call him a communist if he wins the nomination, but by election time his "socialism" will be old news, with articles dissecting his socialist leanings, like this one, having well defined his positions. The claim that he is a communist is a much harder sell to anyone but the hard core right who would never vote for a Democratic candidate of any definition, so no loss there. This is a sound strategy.
3
The sad part is that although Bernie Sanders would be considered nothing out of the ordinary in Europe, he's the most radical American politician we've had in decades.
10
It seems that many of the people cited in the article would prefer that Sanders walk back the label that he has long used to describe his political beliefs. But isn't that precisely the kind of triangulation and political cynicism that his campaign is pushing back against?
2
Fear peddling conservatives are of course trying to attack Bernie Sanders by misrepresenting him as a "socialist". They've been doing that to Obama for 8 years now too. It's just a blind insult for them at this point that has no bearing on reality or the capability of reading a dictionary. The Social Democracy policies Bernie is proposing are no more radical than Social Security, Medicare, public schools, and fire departments.
The info you need to defeat the S-word attack on Bernie Sanders
http://plus.google.com/+OleOlson/posts/CnZocANdcHn
The following all received 70% support or more:
Allow Government to Negotiate Drug Prices (79%)
Give Students the Same Low Interest Rates as Big Banks (78%)
Universal Pre-Kindergarten (77%)
Fair Trade that Protect Workers, the Environment, and Jobs (75%)
End Tax Loopholes for Corporations that Ship Jobs Overseas (74%)
End Gerrymandering (73%)
Let Homeowners Pay Down Mortgage With 401k (72%)
Debt-Free College at All Public Universities (Message A) (71%)
Infrastructure Jobs Program — $400 Billion / Year (71%)
Require NSA to Get Warrants (71%)
Disclose Corporate Spending on Politics/Lobbying (71%)
Medicare Buy-In for All (71%)
Close Offshore Corporate Tax Loopholes (70%)
Green New Deal — Millions Of Clean-Energy Jobs (70%)
Full Employment Act (70%)
Expand Social Security Benefits (70%)
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/11/america_is_ready_for_socialism_massive_m...
The info you need to defeat the S-word attack on Bernie Sanders
http://plus.google.com/+OleOlson/posts/CnZocANdcHn
The following all received 70% support or more:
Allow Government to Negotiate Drug Prices (79%)
Give Students the Same Low Interest Rates as Big Banks (78%)
Universal Pre-Kindergarten (77%)
Fair Trade that Protect Workers, the Environment, and Jobs (75%)
End Tax Loopholes for Corporations that Ship Jobs Overseas (74%)
End Gerrymandering (73%)
Let Homeowners Pay Down Mortgage With 401k (72%)
Debt-Free College at All Public Universities (Message A) (71%)
Infrastructure Jobs Program — $400 Billion / Year (71%)
Require NSA to Get Warrants (71%)
Disclose Corporate Spending on Politics/Lobbying (71%)
Medicare Buy-In for All (71%)
Close Offshore Corporate Tax Loopholes (70%)
Green New Deal — Millions Of Clean-Energy Jobs (70%)
Full Employment Act (70%)
Expand Social Security Benefits (70%)
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/11/america_is_ready_for_socialism_massive_m...
7
But at what cost! Everything is a good idea if someone else is paying for it!
Sanders needs to remind everybody plus Hillary that the Danes are the happiest people on the planet, according to credible polls the Times has reported. Hillary, why don't you want Americans to be happier?
10
While I doubt Bernie's chances of capturing the nomination, let alone the White House, his heart is in the right place. The concept there are some services that should exit the free market arena has been a long-standing dream of mine. There are, I believe, "essential goods and services" that ought not be controlled by profit motives. I'm not talking about the price of polo shirts, and sneakers. People on, say, Social Security, (especially whose retirement investments were wiped out, or nearly so, by Wall Street's greedlings, and the real estate and lending institutions who bundled mortgages and pushed homebuyers into deeper debts), need to feel that their cost of living is not going to be negatively affected by the demands for shareholder value and executive compensation.
Ninety-nine percent of Americans are concerned about costs for housing medical care, electricity and home heating, phone services, water, higher education, and, of course, tax rates.
Of course, there will be a market-driven real estate industry with construction and home sales. But for most Americans, it is nearly impossible to save for those down payments for a home. And here is one big reason: while the homeowner can enjoy tax write-offs on their mortgage interest, which also helps to drive up the prices for a home, savers do not have a tax shelter. One solution could be: simply allow renters to write off, say, 15-20 per of their rent so they can save for a down payment.
Ninety-nine percent of Americans are concerned about costs for housing medical care, electricity and home heating, phone services, water, higher education, and, of course, tax rates.
Of course, there will be a market-driven real estate industry with construction and home sales. But for most Americans, it is nearly impossible to save for those down payments for a home. And here is one big reason: while the homeowner can enjoy tax write-offs on their mortgage interest, which also helps to drive up the prices for a home, savers do not have a tax shelter. One solution could be: simply allow renters to write off, say, 15-20 per of their rent so they can save for a down payment.
2
On one hand, even if Bernie does not win the nomination, he will have brought the term 'socialism' back into everyday use, and like all cuss-words it will lose its cuss-word-like quality through repeated use and increased understanding.
On the other, what we needed in 2008 was another FDR, and though I do like the President, that's most decidedly what we did NOT get. Bernie would be right at home in the Democratic Party of 1932, and he would probably stand a better chance of being elected if instead of the 'socialist' label, he were to wear the one that says: 'FDR Democrat'.
On the other, what we needed in 2008 was another FDR, and though I do like the President, that's most decidedly what we did NOT get. Bernie would be right at home in the Democratic Party of 1932, and he would probably stand a better chance of being elected if instead of the 'socialist' label, he were to wear the one that says: 'FDR Democrat'.
9
So basically Hillary supports the status quo and Bernie wants to help working people.
6
The difference is simple. Neoliberal democrats like Clinton favor public-private partnerships, cooperation between democratic government and capitalist corporations, an approach that cedes some economic power to large business interests. Social democrats like Sanders favor purely public solutions, democratic government operating for the common good of society (hence 'democratic socialism'), an approach that limits the economic power of large business interests.
Social democracy is as American as apple pie: check out this article written by James Madison for the National Gazette in 1792 (bit.ly/1lvlFcO), or this recent article from Bill Moyers on the history of American social democracy (http://bit.ly/1FXMjms). Sanders isn't saying anything that Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't have said, and his views actually are more in keeping with the historic traditions of the Democratic Party than Clinton's are, or than most Americans seem to think.
Social democracy is as American as apple pie: check out this article written by James Madison for the National Gazette in 1792 (bit.ly/1lvlFcO), or this recent article from Bill Moyers on the history of American social democracy (http://bit.ly/1FXMjms). Sanders isn't saying anything that Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't have said, and his views actually are more in keeping with the historic traditions of the Democratic Party than Clinton's are, or than most Americans seem to think.
9
How is that the biggest "socialism" ie that of the endless Wars and Corporate welfare to the rich are never counted or even point out whatsoever?
Thus every Republican President since Eisenhower has had a bigger Federal deficit than Democratic Presidents even as they cut aid to public health, schools, libraries, parks and transit. Why? Because Republicans always increase Corporate welfare payments via the endless Wars to what Pope Francis called the merchants of war and armaments which is more than 50% of our Federal income taxes! The extreme rightwing plutocrats and their paid politicians and alleged experts have for years hijacked the principles on which the US Republic was founded to justify their own enrichment and deny the progressive roots of the American Revolution. The US was the first country in the world to provide public schools to all its citizens, both boys and girls in the Northwest Ordinance Act of 1787. Benjamin Franklin founded the public Post Office which deliberately subsidized newspaper circulation to promote a free press similar to our free Internet today as well as public Fire Departments. Thomas Jefferson founded the first secular public university. "Commonwealth of Virginia" "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" are not just phrases but testimony again to the founders belief in the Common Wealth of ALL not just the few aristocrats. Cooperatives, Credit Unions and worker owned enterprises are also rooted in American progressivism. Lets reclaim that!
Thus every Republican President since Eisenhower has had a bigger Federal deficit than Democratic Presidents even as they cut aid to public health, schools, libraries, parks and transit. Why? Because Republicans always increase Corporate welfare payments via the endless Wars to what Pope Francis called the merchants of war and armaments which is more than 50% of our Federal income taxes! The extreme rightwing plutocrats and their paid politicians and alleged experts have for years hijacked the principles on which the US Republic was founded to justify their own enrichment and deny the progressive roots of the American Revolution. The US was the first country in the world to provide public schools to all its citizens, both boys and girls in the Northwest Ordinance Act of 1787. Benjamin Franklin founded the public Post Office which deliberately subsidized newspaper circulation to promote a free press similar to our free Internet today as well as public Fire Departments. Thomas Jefferson founded the first secular public university. "Commonwealth of Virginia" "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" are not just phrases but testimony again to the founders belief in the Common Wealth of ALL not just the few aristocrats. Cooperatives, Credit Unions and worker owned enterprises are also rooted in American progressivism. Lets reclaim that!
6
The long accepted term for Sander's vision of the relationship of economy, society, and government is "social capitalism."
2
If you have a single-payer health care system then you eliminate the health insurance industry and government sets the payment rates for doctors, hospitals etc., just like they do under Medicare. If you have government paying for college then you have the federal government determining the pay of college professors and who gets into Harvard versus Appalachian State. If Sanders had been president when Detroit's collapse would he have favored a bailout or a takeover of the car industry?
It is a key principle of capitalist insurance to seek the largest risk pool (everybody chips in so that there is funding for the worst case)- it is the basis for fiscal solvency.
Medicare for all- expanding eligibility from age 65 downward, gradually, would both provide a low overhead natl health insurance, control costs, enjoy economies of scale, provide crucial medical info, and liberate small business from the burden of paying for benefits (which reduce US competitive pricing on global markets).
This is sound capitalism.
Medicare for all- expanding eligibility from age 65 downward, gradually, would both provide a low overhead natl health insurance, control costs, enjoy economies of scale, provide crucial medical info, and liberate small business from the burden of paying for benefits (which reduce US competitive pricing on global markets).
This is sound capitalism.
6
There's an important point that I think this article leaves out about the Sanders' campaign...
Sanders is trying to return the Democractic party to an emphasis that it had lost in recent decades, when Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats adopted the "New Democrat" moderate/right strategy that they pursued as a response to the popularity of Ronald Reagan. Many of Sanders' views were prevalent in the Democratic party for literally decades, from the 1930s to the 1980s.
There are a lot of voters who were young children or not yet born when Reagan became president. They don't know the Democratic party prior to the New Democrat orientation. But now Sanders is introducing them to an other way.
Sanders is trying to return the Democractic party to an emphasis that it had lost in recent decades, when Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats adopted the "New Democrat" moderate/right strategy that they pursued as a response to the popularity of Ronald Reagan. Many of Sanders' views were prevalent in the Democratic party for literally decades, from the 1930s to the 1980s.
There are a lot of voters who were young children or not yet born when Reagan became president. They don't know the Democratic party prior to the New Democrat orientation. But now Sanders is introducing them to an other way.
10
Bernie has a program to help Americans whose America has disappeared behind 1% control and ownership of the vast resources of this nation.
The 1% who own almost all of the wealth of the nation and have almost all of the income generated are the undemocratic socialists whose view of government is more for me and less for the 99%. It seeks no taxes to speak of on the 1%, a reduction of government except to maintain armies and secret government spy systems to ensure they maintain the wealth and income they have stolen from other Americans.
To do so, the political as well as the social and economic systems must work only for their benefit. That is the great and only real divide in America.
Bernie expresses in his program ways to improve American democracy and with it economic and social advancement for the middle class and those (now about 20%) who are defined as poor. In fact there is no real middle class. Just a lot of people whose American dream has been shattered or reduced to a one minute apologia.
The Republican Party has many candidates. Two stand out today. One is a man whose wealth makes in his eyes the only criteria to judge him. The other is a walking basketcase for whom even advanced surgery would be a wasteful effort.
The Democratic Party has a few candidates. One for the last 40 years is honest, trustworthy and real. He has a program for Americans often distorted in the media to attack him. See his program without the media filter. Search Bernie Sanders.
The 1% who own almost all of the wealth of the nation and have almost all of the income generated are the undemocratic socialists whose view of government is more for me and less for the 99%. It seeks no taxes to speak of on the 1%, a reduction of government except to maintain armies and secret government spy systems to ensure they maintain the wealth and income they have stolen from other Americans.
To do so, the political as well as the social and economic systems must work only for their benefit. That is the great and only real divide in America.
Bernie expresses in his program ways to improve American democracy and with it economic and social advancement for the middle class and those (now about 20%) who are defined as poor. In fact there is no real middle class. Just a lot of people whose American dream has been shattered or reduced to a one minute apologia.
The Republican Party has many candidates. Two stand out today. One is a man whose wealth makes in his eyes the only criteria to judge him. The other is a walking basketcase for whom even advanced surgery would be a wasteful effort.
The Democratic Party has a few candidates. One for the last 40 years is honest, trustworthy and real. He has a program for Americans often distorted in the media to attack him. See his program without the media filter. Search Bernie Sanders.
6
These semantic distinctions, in my view, are swamped by the political realities a new president will face, and are therefore meaningless.
What health care or tax reforms does Bernie or Hillary think he or she will get through a Republican congress, and how does he/she plan to do it?
These are the questions we should be asking the candidates, not parsing every statement they make for ideological purity.
Of course, Bernie sweeps aside all such questions by predicting a "revolution" of Sanders voters who will turn out in the millions to deliver Congress back into the Democratic column. That is a leap of faith I'm not willing to make, so I will vote for Hillary.
What health care or tax reforms does Bernie or Hillary think he or she will get through a Republican congress, and how does he/she plan to do it?
These are the questions we should be asking the candidates, not parsing every statement they make for ideological purity.
Of course, Bernie sweeps aside all such questions by predicting a "revolution" of Sanders voters who will turn out in the millions to deliver Congress back into the Democratic column. That is a leap of faith I'm not willing to make, so I will vote for Hillary.
1
The revolutions already under way. 200k active unpaid volunteers and growing. Of course it's not televised. Go to berniesanders.com and select events.
1
I seem to recall from my Economics course many years ago that a "socialist" system is defined as an economy wherein the government owns or controls the "means of production". The classic example is the government owning a steel mill with the employees working for the state. On the other hand, transfer payments such as food stamps, welfare, Medicare and Social Security are examples of "social welfare."
The difference between socialism and social welfare are significant. Medicare doctors and most hospitals are not owned or operated by the government. And unlike the VA system, Bernie's proposed "Medicare for all" would not create a new socialist program. It would merely expand an existing social welfare program. Yes, I know that current Medicare recipients pay into the system. But the average senior (over a lifetime) receives $3 of medical care for every $1 they pay into the system.
So, let's stop calling Medicare, Social Secuity and food stamps "socialism" and let's stop referring to Bernie Sanders as a socialist. He is not proposing to nationalize the banks, or car companies, or utilities, or even the health care system. He is instead advocating more social welfare in the form of free college education and universal health care paid for by higher taxes. He is no more a "socialist" than Donald Trump or Jeb Bush. He is a classic and proud liberal.
The difference between socialism and social welfare are significant. Medicare doctors and most hospitals are not owned or operated by the government. And unlike the VA system, Bernie's proposed "Medicare for all" would not create a new socialist program. It would merely expand an existing social welfare program. Yes, I know that current Medicare recipients pay into the system. But the average senior (over a lifetime) receives $3 of medical care for every $1 they pay into the system.
So, let's stop calling Medicare, Social Secuity and food stamps "socialism" and let's stop referring to Bernie Sanders as a socialist. He is not proposing to nationalize the banks, or car companies, or utilities, or even the health care system. He is instead advocating more social welfare in the form of free college education and universal health care paid for by higher taxes. He is no more a "socialist" than Donald Trump or Jeb Bush. He is a classic and proud liberal.
2
The well known Democratic Socialist nations of the world have private enterprise. The government controls the vital industries: Railroads, hospitals and the like. I have never seen anything that details how many people die in Denmark because they cannot afford health care.
4
What this illustrates is that crude labels such as "capitalist" and "socialist" dumb down the debate to a puerile level - much like requiring people to declare whether they are white or red wine lovers (with the presumption that you must love one of the two, and you can't be a lover of both), minus the rabid dog anger that political labels set off.
And while labels such as "social democrat" and "democratic socialist capitalist add a bit more precision to the menu of choices, the result, as Barro aptly points out, is that now these terms describe everyone without distinguishing between us, because we all satisfy what is implied: a preference for a bit of both capitalist and socialist approaches, each in its own niche, and in some niches a mixture. Rare few people prefer the pure forms of everything being owned and run by the government, or everything being owned as private property in an otherwise wholly unregulated market.
Productive discussion happens when we start thinking about whether this or that niche - healthcare, education, personal entertainment, basic food and shelter vs. luxury food and shelter, internet infrastructure, and so on - is better served by just leaving it alone, by publicly vetted and voted subsidy and penalty, or by various other creative ways of distributing resources and decision making powers.
Once we focus on the details, even just a little, the toxicity of these crude political labels tends to dissipate, because they cease to be relevant.
And while labels such as "social democrat" and "democratic socialist capitalist add a bit more precision to the menu of choices, the result, as Barro aptly points out, is that now these terms describe everyone without distinguishing between us, because we all satisfy what is implied: a preference for a bit of both capitalist and socialist approaches, each in its own niche, and in some niches a mixture. Rare few people prefer the pure forms of everything being owned and run by the government, or everything being owned as private property in an otherwise wholly unregulated market.
Productive discussion happens when we start thinking about whether this or that niche - healthcare, education, personal entertainment, basic food and shelter vs. luxury food and shelter, internet infrastructure, and so on - is better served by just leaving it alone, by publicly vetted and voted subsidy and penalty, or by various other creative ways of distributing resources and decision making powers.
Once we focus on the details, even just a little, the toxicity of these crude political labels tends to dissipate, because they cease to be relevant.
6
It's actually quite simple, and yet Mr. Sanders has had a very difficult time making it clear to people. His political philosophy is called "democratic socialism." It is quite simply market capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) as a driver for the amelioration of all society, through various socialized government programs.
That is NOT socialism, which entails the government owning the means of production.
Canada's health care system is NOT socialism; the British system IS. Why? Because even though the Canadian government is the single payer of benefits, the doctors are not employees of the state. British doctors are.
Denmark is NOT (for the most part) a socialist nation. Public assets were sold of decades ago and they've been privately owned since.
The redistribution of wealth is not socialism. It is, where it can be found, simply a government initiative.
Ben Carson says our progressive tax system is socialism; it is NOT. I would urge Dr. Carson to read Book V of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
That is NOT socialism, which entails the government owning the means of production.
Canada's health care system is NOT socialism; the British system IS. Why? Because even though the Canadian government is the single payer of benefits, the doctors are not employees of the state. British doctors are.
Denmark is NOT (for the most part) a socialist nation. Public assets were sold of decades ago and they've been privately owned since.
The redistribution of wealth is not socialism. It is, where it can be found, simply a government initiative.
Ben Carson says our progressive tax system is socialism; it is NOT. I would urge Dr. Carson to read Book V of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
4
"Mr. Konczal did offer one difference between Mr. Sanders’s and Mrs. Clinton’s worldviews ... the idea that some goods and services are so important that they ought to be removed from the market economy altogether."
This mis-states the real reason some goods and services are more highly regulated. It is NOT because those things are so "important", but because the competitive market does not work properly to set prices and make them available. It is true that electricity is very important, but the reason that market is highly regulated is because the high cost of the infrastructure to deliver it makes it a natural monopoly. An unregulated power market would allow private enterprises to extract unfair profits, and also to restrict distribution to those in densely populated areas. (Have you called Comcast for service lately? :-)
There are plenty of very important goods and services which do not need to be so regulated, because the barriers to entry are low enough to allow real competition: food, clothing, etc.
In the case of health care, many economists have pointed out that this "market" does not work in a transparent, competitive manner. Clearly, I can't bargain on price in the back of an ambulance. But even for non-emergency care, it can be very difficult to find the price of a medical procedure. Often, even the provider does not have that information! That is the reason so many countries have a single-payer system.
This mis-states the real reason some goods and services are more highly regulated. It is NOT because those things are so "important", but because the competitive market does not work properly to set prices and make them available. It is true that electricity is very important, but the reason that market is highly regulated is because the high cost of the infrastructure to deliver it makes it a natural monopoly. An unregulated power market would allow private enterprises to extract unfair profits, and also to restrict distribution to those in densely populated areas. (Have you called Comcast for service lately? :-)
There are plenty of very important goods and services which do not need to be so regulated, because the barriers to entry are low enough to allow real competition: food, clothing, etc.
In the case of health care, many economists have pointed out that this "market" does not work in a transparent, competitive manner. Clearly, I can't bargain on price in the back of an ambulance. But even for non-emergency care, it can be very difficult to find the price of a medical procedure. Often, even the provider does not have that information! That is the reason so many countries have a single-payer system.
4
Your points are well taken and embraced for the most part. I was amused by your Comcast comment because they are despised nearly universally. As for electricity, there was the Enron disaster which allowed power traders to hold states, like my native California (and the other western states) hostage for higher rates before the "gates" were unlocked. Natural gas was blocked at the Arizona/California border by those same energy traders who were caught sneering at "little old grandmothers" with no other choice but to pay higher fees.
Essential goods and services including utilities, medical care and higher education, to name a few, must be regulated whether they are private industries or not. We know what happens so consumers when shareholder value and executive compensation take priority over the common good.
Essential goods and services including utilities, medical care and higher education, to name a few, must be regulated whether they are private industries or not. We know what happens so consumers when shareholder value and executive compensation take priority over the common good.
"Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, calls himself a socialist, but he doesn’t want to nationalize the steel mills. Or anything else, actually."
Yet.
Bernie has a punitive attitude toward people who are well off, and his entire career has been built on stoking class resentments. Eventually, that philosophy can only lead one way.
Yet.
Bernie has a punitive attitude toward people who are well off, and his entire career has been built on stoking class resentments. Eventually, that philosophy can only lead one way.
3
Probably because there's been a redistribution of wealth upward for as long as he's been in office and longer. Class warfare has been going on for quite some time, he's one of the few in Congress to be so vocal about it and this is a good thing.
1
No cost of living increase but medicare payments go up greatly,
The federal government couldn't run a chain of gas stations
The federal government couldn't run a chain of gas stations
3
Larry Gavod?
The subtext is that Europeans are sufficiently intelligent to parse labels, while here in the U.S., we speak bumper sticker (remember "Death panels"?).
We're all socialists. How much is a function of whose ox is being gored. If your driveway is a half a mile of private road leading to an estate hidden behind hedges, your definition of socialism will differ from mine. You and I will argue about the best ways to further society via taxation and government intervention. This I understand, and approve. However, I'm not keen on the trend to diminish the rule of democracy by means of campaign financing, restrictive zoning, gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Sanders's manifesto comes down to this: The very wealthy prefer autocracy to democracy. He's telling us to beware. He couldn't be more right.
We're all socialists. How much is a function of whose ox is being gored. If your driveway is a half a mile of private road leading to an estate hidden behind hedges, your definition of socialism will differ from mine. You and I will argue about the best ways to further society via taxation and government intervention. This I understand, and approve. However, I'm not keen on the trend to diminish the rule of democracy by means of campaign financing, restrictive zoning, gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Sanders's manifesto comes down to this: The very wealthy prefer autocracy to democracy. He's telling us to beware. He couldn't be more right.
62
Social Capitalism is term that seems to fit Bernie pretty well. It's capitalism with a bit of the Golden Rule sprinkled on top. Business is good. Just don't lie, cheat, pollute, extort, endanger or steal in the process. And it's the job of the government to enforce that through good regulation. Very simple.
33
He's a social democrat. I don't know why he calls himself a democratic socialist. That would make him like Morales of Bolivia - much more to the left. Democratic socialists tend to be tempted to do away with the "democratic" bit and monopolise power for themselves, becoming leaders of one party, fully socialist states. That's not Bernie. But your conclusion is essentially correct for - as I've recently determined - "liberal" pretty much means "social democrat" in your country.
But really "liberalism" is a centre-right political philosophy focused on the freedom of individuals from state and other interference. I'll translate it for you Americans as "moderate conservatism". Actually that probably just confuses you more. Libertarianism, neo-liberalism and particularly right-wing Christian conservatism - none of which could be described as moderate - have really messed up what it means to be "liberal" (and "conservative" too) in your country I think.
Basically a social democrat is someone inclined to remember that nations are polities and societies not just economies. They value social solidarity and fairness - even at the cost of the loss of some personal freedom. They respect private enterprise but they respect government too. But they are proud democrats happy to hold free and fair elections the other side (usually liberals or "moderate conservatives" in Europe) might win.
Personally I'm a liberal social democrat so I'd likely vote for Mr Sanders if I was a US citizen.
But really "liberalism" is a centre-right political philosophy focused on the freedom of individuals from state and other interference. I'll translate it for you Americans as "moderate conservatism". Actually that probably just confuses you more. Libertarianism, neo-liberalism and particularly right-wing Christian conservatism - none of which could be described as moderate - have really messed up what it means to be "liberal" (and "conservative" too) in your country I think.
Basically a social democrat is someone inclined to remember that nations are polities and societies not just economies. They value social solidarity and fairness - even at the cost of the loss of some personal freedom. They respect private enterprise but they respect government too. But they are proud democrats happy to hold free and fair elections the other side (usually liberals or "moderate conservatives" in Europe) might win.
Personally I'm a liberal social democrat so I'd likely vote for Mr Sanders if I was a US citizen.
16
You are corect that the term "liberal" not to mention "socialist" - as in Obama of the CITI Bank cabinet is one - has been used to distort and confuse Americans. Also, "conservative" should be added as there is nothing truly conservative in flame throwing government shut downs. The reactionaries and Libertarians have played havic with both our government and our language. Let's hope they fall completely off that right edge they are clinging to and put us out of their misery while there is still something to salvage. It cannot come a day too soon. Canada's election gives me hope that the long receeding tide of GOP domination and control will finally turn towards the common goog once again.
Thank you for the clarity of your comments
Thank you for the clarity of your comments
2
The problem is not just that the labels are not accurate. The problem is that labels are insufficient for complex systems, and people. Bernie has benefited from some folks who take the term democratic socialist to mean, even before we know the policies, "take a look at this guy, he's gutsy, independent, supports social welfare programs, you'd probably like his work." And indeed I happen to like most of it, and other aspects I don't. But by the same token, the term means to other folks, "Watch out, high taxes, anti-American, lots of regulation, won't defend us in time of war." The problem is that most voters don't particularly have the energy to learn, or have the reasonable capacity, to know the full and precise record of each candidate on highly complex matters. So we use nicknames like Republican, moderate, family values candidate, liberal, socialist, hawk, fiscal conservative, mainstream, democratic, etc. None of this is likely to change in a country and time of poor civic education, broad disengagement from meaningful politics, sound bites, and corporate-owned politicians. But: good news! Part of Sanders' campaign is to foster a "political revolution" to counter these trends, not merely elect a president, and it is as much for his grassroots style of campaigning as his policies that he's got my enthusiastic support. "Enough with the damn emails" means a whole lot more than "let's hear a new question at the debate." It means, "Let's have a debate."
10
Oh come on. Americans understand what a socialist is. After all, the GOP has spent the last eight years explaining to the public that a socialist is someone like Barack Obama.
7
I hope your sarcasm carries (I fear it won't).
If you compare Sanders to the policies "Democrats" have been espousing for the last 30 years, rather than the policies they pretended to adopt last week, it's clear why Sanders required a different label.
11
Is the article knowingly attempting to confuse people or, are people truly so right leaning that they have conveniently put from their minds the undeniable fact that we Americans live in a dual system of socialism and capitalism. A system of social democracy, or democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders has not turned his back on regulated capitalism. His allegiance is to our socially democratic system. He is saying that the system has become unbalanced to the detriment of America's dual contract that all Americans have the opportunity to progress through their own efforts, while providing all Americans socially enhancing, life and death services, and I agree with him. There is no room in a successful social democracy for oligarchy. Mrs. Clinton played dirty, which is not uncommon for her, while Sanders treated her honesty, very fairly during the debate, actually went over the top to protect her, considering that she didn't know whether to stand up or sit down before Sanders stated his policies, which she latched onto and is now using as her platform, with myriad loopholes and qualifiers regarding one percent corporate thievery and another of Mrs. Clinton's personal favorites, the military industrial machine. The Clintons are not progressives, or social democrats, as they have proven many times over.
30
In terms of shaping the argument, Sanders has made exactly the right move. Instead of being labeled with the dreaded "liberal" moniker and engaging in defensive communication and explaining what he is not, he has given himself a solid back and can now talk about what he is. That is a much stronger position to be in.
Liberals, socialists, social democrats, democratic socialists, liberal democrats, socialist liberals, ... have wasted a lot of time and energy and political capital drawing fine distinctions among each other and fighting each other, and then Republican Know-Nothings have run rough-shod over all these fine lines and won elections by pushing them all into the "liberal" corner anyway. I am sorry to see that this article falls into the same 'liberal' trap.
Liberals, socialists, social democrats, democratic socialists, liberal democrats, socialist liberals, ... have wasted a lot of time and energy and political capital drawing fine distinctions among each other and fighting each other, and then Republican Know-Nothings have run rough-shod over all these fine lines and won elections by pushing them all into the "liberal" corner anyway. I am sorry to see that this article falls into the same 'liberal' trap.
9
You mention liberal like it is a bad thing....
"Liberal" is almost like a fighting word for most Republicans I know.
It is not possible to un-confuse American political labels and mis-thinking in 1500 characters or less.
When the Times wants to avail itself to serious commentary, let me know.
When the Times wants to avail itself to serious commentary, let me know.
6
Back in the late 1930s, when I was a kid in grammar school in Alameda, CA, there was exactly one of my fellow students who wasn’t 100% anglo. Maybe our parents did, but none of my cohort ever spoke about his race. If we had it would have been as “colored” or “negro.”
That all changed with WWII. Alameda and the rest of the Bay Area was flooded by an influx of people from other states including many “people of color.” Only that wasn’t the term applied to them.
How did those “people of color” react? They led in the effort to be identified as “black” or “African American” and today words that were once pejorative have become not only acceptable but symbolic of pride.
Today most right-leaning people use Neanderthal speak, as in “Me Capitalist, GOOD” or “ You Socialist, BAD!”
Instead of waiting for people of whatever political persuasions to label him as a socialist, Sanders has taken the first bold steps toward more rational use of the word.
That all changed with WWII. Alameda and the rest of the Bay Area was flooded by an influx of people from other states including many “people of color.” Only that wasn’t the term applied to them.
How did those “people of color” react? They led in the effort to be identified as “black” or “African American” and today words that were once pejorative have become not only acceptable but symbolic of pride.
Today most right-leaning people use Neanderthal speak, as in “Me Capitalist, GOOD” or “ You Socialist, BAD!”
Instead of waiting for people of whatever political persuasions to label him as a socialist, Sanders has taken the first bold steps toward more rational use of the word.
14
Social Democrat equals a plan to have a responsible, fair and open capitalistic system. To assure that all are included and that a few do not control the many. Its a system of regulations and actions to include all workers, owners, and others involved. It is a plan to make sure that the "commons' such as health care, infrastructure, environment etc is protected and available to all. It is the government responsibility as the peoples representative to assure that all of those involved re following the principles. It is not anti business or for government takeover. It is much better then our present oligarchy world of a few taking all.
20
It's really simple. Bernie wants people powering our government, not corporations and other special interests. Unfortunately Congress has been the tool of these powers for many long decades. They feed both sides of the aisle in our two-party duopoly.
One thing to keep in mind is that there is an actual Socialist Party, and there is socialism as a loose idea of social and economic policies. Bernie clearly does not belong to the Socialist Party, but has many common sense proposals that have worked exceedingly well in democratic socialist countries.
These same proposals are what the majority of Americans want, and we need a president that will champion these issues loudly and clearly, not simply pay them lip service like some other candidates.
One thing to keep in mind is that there is an actual Socialist Party, and there is socialism as a loose idea of social and economic policies. Bernie clearly does not belong to the Socialist Party, but has many common sense proposals that have worked exceedingly well in democratic socialist countries.
These same proposals are what the majority of Americans want, and we need a president that will champion these issues loudly and clearly, not simply pay them lip service like some other candidates.
11
I don't care what alleged "pundits" care to call Mr. Sanders in an attempt to demonize him and his aspirations.
I hope to one day soon call him "Mr. President" and let it go at that.
I hope to one day soon call him "Mr. President" and let it go at that.
46
I sure like a form of government based on social democracy more than a form of government based on corporate capitalism.
I agree Bernie should drop the socialist from the description of himself. He has much to offer the country and aside from socialism is saying all the right things.
I agree Bernie should drop the socialist from the description of himself. He has much to offer the country and aside from socialism is saying all the right things.
9
How can Hillary say that "Capitalism built the Middle Class" with a straight face ?
6
You're right. Much more accurate to say, at one time capitalism may have built the middle class, but right now it's in the process of destroying it.
10
“When you look at the policies, there’s a way to see it as Bernie has cranked up Hillary’s agenda to 11,” Mr. Konczal said. To wit: Mrs. Clinton favors preserving Social Security with some enhancements for the poorest beneficiaries, while he wants to raise taxes on the rich to expand it in ways that could add $65 per month to the average benefit. This, like most political debates, is a disagreement about how far to turn the knobs when adjusting policy; it does not seem to call for a separate ideological label."
welcome to planet earth guys!!! I think liberal has a completely different connotation. I cherish liberty, but in economic terms it is more associated with financial excellence than with whether someone will stop your house from burning down or whether you will get hospitalized, in my opinion. Go Sanders!
welcome to planet earth guys!!! I think liberal has a completely different connotation. I cherish liberty, but in economic terms it is more associated with financial excellence than with whether someone will stop your house from burning down or whether you will get hospitalized, in my opinion. Go Sanders!
7
I consider myself a socialist who very much admires capitalism and how it benefits a society but ONLY when it is regulated by the government (us) to keep the playing field level for all and to protect workers and consumers from the abuses that results from unregulated capitalism.
I am not shy about calling myself a socialist because Americans have been taught to equate socialism with evil and jack-booted thugs and they need to see we are pretty normal people. Ironically, we are already a socialistic country (look at all our government programs) and people don't even realize it.
I am not shy about calling myself a socialist because Americans have been taught to equate socialism with evil and jack-booted thugs and they need to see we are pretty normal people. Ironically, we are already a socialistic country (look at all our government programs) and people don't even realize it.
9
You're only a socialist if you promote the idea of the government owning the means of production: steel mills, railroads, airplane factories, etc.
We have many socialized programs. Socialized does not equal socialism.
We have many socialized programs. Socialized does not equal socialism.
Words and image is incredibly powerful - and Bernie is hampered by his own description of himself as Democratic Socialist. The word resonates with people who disagree or are blinded by ideology. He needs to conflate the word socialist with very liberal.
1
They are not the same...
If you look at the conventional definition of socialism -- it is a system where major industries are owned collectively. Bernie Sanders is NOT a traditional socialist and shouldn't classify himself as such. Further socialists believe that socialism will emerge from necessity as capitalism will render itself obsolete and unsustainable. What does Sanders feel about that? Is capitalism just a passing phase?
Democratic socialists advocate capitalism as a conduit to a fully functioning society where everyone is included not only politically buy economically.
There is a thought among some democratic socialists that capitalism is indeed simply a tool that will eventually cease to exist once certain goals are met. But capitalism in that sense is thought upon as a market system rather than one that in the private ownership aspect.
There is a thought among some democratic socialists that capitalism is indeed simply a tool that will eventually cease to exist once certain goals are met. But capitalism in that sense is thought upon as a market system rather than one that in the private ownership aspect.
He's a social democrat. I've always found him (and everyone else) calling himself a "socialist" a little irritating because he obviously doesn't believe in the collective ownership of capital. Historical experiments suggest that socialism is actually pretty much a bad economic system; social democracies, on the other hand, work very well.
Sanders is a bona fide FDR Democrat. That's good enough for me. And it's what America desperately needs now that the pendulum of power has swung so far back in favor of the vested and powerful corporate interests.
(That said, I do wish he'd stop using the "Democratic Socialist" label: while perfectly accurate and commendable, it is also needlessly confusing to an increasingly ill-informed electorate for whom vitriolic soundbites invariably conquer reasoned and thoughtful arguments. And, tragically, a combination of history and fear mongering have irrepairably tainted that word in contemporary American political culture.)
(That said, I do wish he'd stop using the "Democratic Socialist" label: while perfectly accurate and commendable, it is also needlessly confusing to an increasingly ill-informed electorate for whom vitriolic soundbites invariably conquer reasoned and thoughtful arguments. And, tragically, a combination of history and fear mongering have irrepairably tainted that word in contemporary American political culture.)
10
I agree it might hurt him, but I think he is trying to change the ideologi of individualism being the backbone of American culture. A country is a country for a reason and strenght whether economic, military, or social is something you achieve with your countrymen. And that is democratic socialism, and he has to stick with that to change the path that United States is on. He is up against a country that is build on philosophers like Henry thoreaus idea of individualism. But it is clear that it is a inhumane society with 47 million people below the international poverty line and a huge debt due to horrible wars. United States will not be what they once were before they can grasp the idea of a democratic socialism, and get more than 50% of there people to actually vote
4
Social Democrat may be more accurate, from what he's said.
2
He actually calls himself a democratic socialist. He does himself a disservice when he truncates "democratic", as socialism has nothing to do with democratic socialism.
Sanders would bring back the War on Poverty and update Affordable Care. We need these progressive measures, whether they are socialist or not.
8
I hope Biden runs, takes votes from Clinton, and the Bern wins. Nothing is going to change with Biden in office and I feel like Clinton is the same. We do need a revolution of people to take a strong stand against the big money running everything in this country.
8
Agreed. In D.C., Biden is known as "The senator from Mastercard" for his ongoing support of credit card companies. On behalf of the financial services industry, he spearheaded successful federal bankruptcy law change that Clinton, with a lame excuse, also voted for. Sanders probably won't bring this up as long as he's playing nice, but his surrogates could. Someone should ask Elizabeth Warren about bankruptcy law "reform" and the role Biden has played in it.
2
Each party has its fringe candidate. Sanders is the Carson of the left. He is completely out of whack if he thinks America will elect a socialist.
Newsflash - America doesn't want to be like Denmark.
Newsflash - America doesn't want to be like Denmark.
2
Pretty sure the 47 million people You have Living in poverty would like the help that a country like Denmark would give them, paid for by people who are somehow still very very wealthy and have created companies like Maersk, LEGO, Novo nordisk, Novozymes, Skype, Grundfos and other global leading companies despite being about 5m people in size
You mean having a higher life expectancy, guaranteed access to health care and a higher education, secure retirement, etc? Greater right to privacy? ...poor Denmark...I can see why we wouldn't want to be like them...
Newsflash: this American in fact would like America to be more like Denmark, as do thousands and thousands of others who support Sanders. If enough Americans want what Sanders is offering, and get out and vote, then that's what America will be. I am optimistic.
Let's call Bernie a Keynesian or an FDR-New-Dealer stalwart, and leave it at that. The "socialism" red herring, and the way the press, NYT included, keeps harping on it, is misleading and harmful to an analysis of the actual issues.
9
Good column. But it's pitiful that Bernie has left Mr. Barro and astute NY Times commenters to grope around figuring out what Bernie means by "democratic socialist.". If Bernie wants to campaign under the provocative label "socialist," fine. But he should have explained what he means by it a long time ago.
1
He has and did... a long time ago. If one knows anything about Sanders, he has run as a "socialist Democrat" since 1991.
What is so "provocative" about socialism? Canada, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Australia, Belgium, New Zealand.... to name a few provocatively socialist countries whose citizens are better educated, healthier, safer than citizens in the US. Easy to verify.
What is so "provocative" about socialism? Canada, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Australia, Belgium, New Zealand.... to name a few provocatively socialist countries whose citizens are better educated, healthier, safer than citizens in the US. Easy to verify.
1
Why try to construct a label for what Bernie represents? Just listen to him speak. It doesn't get any clearer.
7
No need to worry. The American right wing is quite skilled at assassinating democratically elected Socialists in other countries in other parts of the world (especially Latin America) and has proven it's ability to do so right here in the good old land of the free and home of the brave. I love Bernie, But I pray he loses. If not, and the neo-fascist right wing, religious conservative fanatics can't reign him in-well there are plenty of Lee Harvey Oswalds in the CIA/FBI/NSA playbook.
1
To characterize Sanders as a sort of "Hillary on steroids" is disingenuous. They are fundamentally different candidates. Sanders' democratic socialism is in sharp contrast to the rampant neoliberal ideology of Clinton Democrats. His position can be summarized basically as prioritizing people over profit. It really is as simple as that.
Sanders is, as a matter of principle, not accepting money from super PACs -- and in doing so he both makes a point about our corrupt political system, and also ensures that he will not be indebted to "the billionaire class" if/when he is nominated and/or elected. Hillary, on the other hand, takes money from many, many special interests -- including the big banks, which Sanders understandably wants to break up. He is, in sum, a "people's candidate," while Hillary is an "establishment candidate."
Democratic Socialism has a rich history. Few articles will tell you that Martin Luther King, Jr., Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Cornel West, Helen Keller, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, and -- one of Sanders' idols -- Eugene V. Debs, all identified as democratic socialists. Sanders is in good company.
Sanders is, as a matter of principle, not accepting money from super PACs -- and in doing so he both makes a point about our corrupt political system, and also ensures that he will not be indebted to "the billionaire class" if/when he is nominated and/or elected. Hillary, on the other hand, takes money from many, many special interests -- including the big banks, which Sanders understandably wants to break up. He is, in sum, a "people's candidate," while Hillary is an "establishment candidate."
Democratic Socialism has a rich history. Few articles will tell you that Martin Luther King, Jr., Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Cornel West, Helen Keller, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein, and -- one of Sanders' idols -- Eugene V. Debs, all identified as democratic socialists. Sanders is in good company.
15
As a liberal democrat who supports much of Bernie Sanders position I was initially confused by the label he applied to himself which is often shortened in the media to just "Socialist" and you can bet if a left wing fan of the senator is a little confused then mainstream America is gonna really be scratching their heads.
We can make this election about semantics or we can make it about policy and Sander's adoption of the socialist label confuses the issue to the benefit of those that wish to turn America into some modern version of the feudal state.
Words and all the secondary values that attach to them are important in communication and if Sander's can't see that then I really question his judgement.
We can make this election about semantics or we can make it about policy and Sander's adoption of the socialist label confuses the issue to the benefit of those that wish to turn America into some modern version of the feudal state.
Words and all the secondary values that attach to them are important in communication and if Sander's can't see that then I really question his judgement.
3
The difference between Bernie Sanders and all other candidates for president is that he places the welfare of people over that of corporations(not people, thanks supreme court!). No matter how you define things this is the key difference and the reason why I support Sanders for president.
9
The problem with Sanders' platform is that the democratic socialist countries he admires, like Denmark, have less regulation of business than the US currently has. This ensures prosperity, and provides a generous tax base to support social programs. If you have both high taxes and nit-picking regulations, the economy will fizzle and the social programs will collapse.
1
Wow, there are huge regulations on your ability to speculate in the Danish market. Here is a little enlightment for you about regulation of the Danish Stock market:
Public disclosure is required for net short positions of shares that reach 0.5% of the issued share capital of the company concerned and again at each 0.1% increment above that. Additionally disclosure is required publicly when the position subsequently falls below 0.5%.
Seriously, educate your self before talking about serious issues. Saying us is regulated and Denmark is unregulated is the dummest thing i have read today, amd there have been some pretty dumb comments
Public disclosure is required for net short positions of shares that reach 0.5% of the issued share capital of the company concerned and again at each 0.1% increment above that. Additionally disclosure is required publicly when the position subsequently falls below 0.5%.
Seriously, educate your self before talking about serious issues. Saying us is regulated and Denmark is unregulated is the dummest thing i have read today, amd there have been some pretty dumb comments
Senator Sanders said he is opposed to the predatory, ultra-greedy, socially unconscious capitalism we have today, not capitalism in general. He is opposed to the fact that the deck has been stacked for the last 40+ years, since Ronald Reagan, for the top 1% global financial elite and believes it should be re-stacked so 99% of us benefit as well. The vast majority of Americans favor Medicare for all with serious government provider price controls, regulation and oversight to prevent fraud. The vast majority of Americans think community college should be free for all and that K-12 public education must be vastly improved for all students - not just the wealthiest kids. I would add that utilities such as water, electricity, communications and any service necessary for daily living should be owned and managed by government so costs are not subject to "market and corporate" greed. Social democracy means government helping people at all levels. What is wrong with that?
22
Why speculate about the possibility of Sanders attempting to do something he would have no ability to do even if elected? It's one thing to be the leader of the majority party in the UK and run roughshod over the opposition with an unbeatable majority in the legislature. It's quite another to be the Chief Executive of a country whose legislature is designed to frustrate rapid change, regardless of who is in control.
4
To call Bernie Sanders "very liberal" is to insinuate that his views are in keeping with the mainstream of the Democratic Party. That is, to put it kindly, disingenuous. Yes, Hillary Clinton is now giving lip service to some positions put forth by Sanders, in something of a Sanders-lite fashion, but nobody takes her seriously. Once elected that'll all be forgotten and she'll take care of those who are bankrolling her election, just like her husband did. Bernie has not "cranked up Hillary's agenda to 11," Hillary has toned down Sanders' agenda to 6.
Sanders is not, as you claim, a "regular Democrat, only more so," at least not from this era. Regular Democrats have demonstrated, at least since the time of Bill Clinton, that they are beholden to Wall Street and banks (Look at Hillary's top contributors). "Liberals "in the U.S. have forsaken the working class, the poor, and even the middle class to curry favor with their chums on Wall Street. Bernie Sanders would be right to be very offended by your charge that he is simply "very liberal."
Sanders is not, as you claim, a "regular Democrat, only more so," at least not from this era. Regular Democrats have demonstrated, at least since the time of Bill Clinton, that they are beholden to Wall Street and banks (Look at Hillary's top contributors). "Liberals "in the U.S. have forsaken the working class, the poor, and even the middle class to curry favor with their chums on Wall Street. Bernie Sanders would be right to be very offended by your charge that he is simply "very liberal."
14
He's a social democrat. Calling someone a "socialist capitalist" is nonsensical. So is calling Scandinavian states socialist.
6
Don't you mean Scandinavian "countries", which are in fact socialist.
This article is certainly very appreciated. The deliberate and relentless smearing, red-baiting and irresponsible misinformation from mainstream media sources has been astonishing, depressing and informative about the interests pulling the strings at those news outlets. I'm not talking about Fox News. I'm talking about CNN, all the major channels and, as a dedicated reader, the New York Times. Anderson Cooper is not foolish enough to not know that the socialist label was inaccurate. He used it anyway because he was told to use it by his employers. His employers are afraid of the popularity of Sanders' policies for reasons they are not being honest about.
Sanders has been a Senator and Representative for many, many years. It is inconceivable that the Times editorial staff and political reporters did not know that to broadly label him an "insurgent" or a "socialist" was an irresponsible smear. And yet those are the words that have been used over and over again in the Times since he began his campaign. October 20th, and we finally get one article that attempts to educate readers about the truth? "He certainly seems like a regular Democrat, only more so." Yes, he does. He is the kind of Democrat my father used to vote for.
The questions that need to be answered are why the Times has relentlessly participated in the misinformation campaign and whose interests have been behind that campaign. Democracy cannot function when the interests controlling the news remain hidden.
Sanders has been a Senator and Representative for many, many years. It is inconceivable that the Times editorial staff and political reporters did not know that to broadly label him an "insurgent" or a "socialist" was an irresponsible smear. And yet those are the words that have been used over and over again in the Times since he began his campaign. October 20th, and we finally get one article that attempts to educate readers about the truth? "He certainly seems like a regular Democrat, only more so." Yes, he does. He is the kind of Democrat my father used to vote for.
The questions that need to be answered are why the Times has relentlessly participated in the misinformation campaign and whose interests have been behind that campaign. Democracy cannot function when the interests controlling the news remain hidden.
14
Well said, Joe. To add: also, the real lack of any intelligent coverage by the media about Senator Sanders is telling.
2
Sanders is the one who has labeled himself a democratic socialist, not the news media. By failing to educate the public fully and directly about what he means by this, Sanders left himself vulnerable to speculation.
Anderson Cooper offered Sanders a big chance to explain the socialist label during the Democratic debate. Sanders blew it off.
From what I know about Sanders so far, I agree with most of his positions. That's why I'm upset that he chose the label "democratic socialist," scary to many Americans, and then has ineptly failed to tell us comprehensively and powerfully what he means by it.
I also regret that, in rejecting the term "liberal," Sanders falls right into line with the long-term far-right campaign to discredit it. New Deal liberalism is a proud chapter in American history, and Democrats ought to say so.
Anderson Cooper offered Sanders a big chance to explain the socialist label during the Democratic debate. Sanders blew it off.
From what I know about Sanders so far, I agree with most of his positions. That's why I'm upset that he chose the label "democratic socialist," scary to many Americans, and then has ineptly failed to tell us comprehensively and powerfully what he means by it.
I also regret that, in rejecting the term "liberal," Sanders falls right into line with the long-term far-right campaign to discredit it. New Deal liberalism is a proud chapter in American history, and Democrats ought to say so.
This article misses the point. For a very long time, American politics has been distorted by the legacy of red-baiting that has left "progressives" and Democrats intellectually chained and unable to articulate their philosophy for fear of being ostracized or worse. Yes, it is correct that on many critical issues Sanders is not calling for a change in kind, only degree. But he does a real service in enabling us to see our current governmental and economic arrangements as they really are: hybrid elements of a mixed economy, previously something that could not be said in public outside of a college campus. Prevailing laissez-faire dogma and fear have required participants in public debate, particularly politicians, to genuflect before "the market," with resulting distortion of the terms of debate and impaired thinking about policy options. In reality, market vs. government should be an empirical question, not an ideological one, about what works best in differing contexts. We should readily agree that markets work best for distribution of toothpaste while government works best for providing the common defense. The debate has raged in between. Does this matter in a practical sense, or is it just an academic squabble? To be continued.
13
Continued.
It matters. Exhibit 1: universal healthcare. Because of free-market ideological bias, the Administration felt constrained to offer only a government-structured marketplace consisting exclusively of private providers of insurance; a universal payer approach, like Medicare for all, could not gain much traction, even though research has shown it to be more efficient. Agree or not, it should have been considered on the merits, and not dismissed a priori for ideological reasons. Similar ideological blinkering affects the range of policy solutions we are willing to consider in the fields of education, infrastructure and transportation, and climate change policy, to name a few. Freed of the fear of the socialist label, policy options could be considered more freely without having to either keep potentially worthy ideas off the table or dress up socialistic ideas in market clothing, with all the inefficiency and distortion that can entail.
It matters. Exhibit 1: universal healthcare. Because of free-market ideological bias, the Administration felt constrained to offer only a government-structured marketplace consisting exclusively of private providers of insurance; a universal payer approach, like Medicare for all, could not gain much traction, even though research has shown it to be more efficient. Agree or not, it should have been considered on the merits, and not dismissed a priori for ideological reasons. Similar ideological blinkering affects the range of policy solutions we are willing to consider in the fields of education, infrastructure and transportation, and climate change policy, to name a few. Freed of the fear of the socialist label, policy options could be considered more freely without having to either keep potentially worthy ideas off the table or dress up socialistic ideas in market clothing, with all the inefficiency and distortion that can entail.
3
Ah, Americans! Nowhere do the stereotypes shine more clearly than in political debate. Anyone who has studied political history, or has familiarity with social democratic parties in, say, France, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden or Finland - just to name a few - knows that capitalism and social democracy are not mutually exclusive. But here in the US, we are still hung over from the red-baiting of the 1950s, and equate socialism to communism. What's worse, we don't even understand the subtleties of communism: a true Marxist state can be a democracy, as Salvador Allende was demonstrating before being murdered by the CIA.
In a social democracy, the desires of capitalism are checked by the needs of the people, so that, for instance, no bank becomes too big to fail. What we have in the US is socialism for the rich, and free enterprise for the rest. If you are a small business owner, you know that nobody will bail you out if your business gets into trouble, but if you sit on the board of Goldman Sachs or General Motors, you know Uncle Sam will rescue you. And the so-called conservatives will be clamoring the hardest for protections and perqs for the rich.
In a social democracy, the desires of capitalism are checked by the needs of the people, so that, for instance, no bank becomes too big to fail. What we have in the US is socialism for the rich, and free enterprise for the rest. If you are a small business owner, you know that nobody will bail you out if your business gets into trouble, but if you sit on the board of Goldman Sachs or General Motors, you know Uncle Sam will rescue you. And the so-called conservatives will be clamoring the hardest for protections and perqs for the rich.
9
This article is just plain stupid. Does anyone believe that all of Europe, Canada and the UK are "socialists" because they have public health care, family and medical leave or strong retirement benefits. Of course not. This whole thing of getting hung up on one term "socialism" (wooooo) is a bunch of nonsense, being promulgated only to distract people from the things Sanders is actually proposing, with which most all Americans fully agree.
16
The points you bring up are what make those countries "social socialist". Affordable and access to healthcare, education, shelter and pensions for every citizen.
Hi Josh, great article. Just dont be confused about social Democrats in Denmark and social Democracy. Even the most right wing parties in Denmark would never break up our welfare society. The diskussion in Denmark is not about paying for Education or not, its about whether the students should get 500$ a month or 1000$ a month while studying. And its about whether taxes on the highest paid individuals should be 65 or 55%,. So that is your answer to why Denmark is still a complete social Democracy despite the party thats actually called social Democrats have only been the leading party for 4 out of the last 14 years. We just dont have anyone that have the radical conservative views that the conservatives in the States do, its inhumane, its bad economics, its the very reason why the us is in hugh debt and have so many people Living below the poverty line (47 million, thats like 3 times all of Scandinavia combined). More people killed by guns that all of western Europe combined, thats actually not even close. So the fact is that the us is way behind in time, but think they lead the World because of some Technological geniusses and successfull businessmen and spekulators that have exploited the lack of regulation on derivatives and shorting in the market.
32
There's a big difference between a politician that considers all the options, those who do that, but who always default to capitalism as the governing ideology, & those who wouldn't even consider any alternative to capitalism 24/7/365.
Government is here is serve those who are unserved by "free enterprise." The efforts of the Republicans are easy enough to sort out. If you're not serving to make a profit for the boss, you have no claim to anything in this society if they can help it. Believe in Social Security? They only say that to avoid a stampede of old folks to the left.
Then there are those who spend most of their time trying to undercut the Republican appeal to the basest moral motivations by nibbling around at the edges of the worst aspects of capitalism, hoping to keep votes in their camp instead of just staying home on election day. They represent little more than window dressing on the ugly in our society (many Dems).
Framing the world as one in which every person has value & a claim to the common good is what socialism is about. Sure, there have been bad (Stalinism) & questionable (Communist crony capitalism in China) forms of socialism, but just as surely there have been bad (a hideous German experiment of the early to mid-20th century) & questionable (the Republican Party for the last 1/2 century & some Dems ) capitalisms.
Democratic socialism asserts that we must include everyone in society, in fact we dare not exclude anyone except at great social cost.
Government is here is serve those who are unserved by "free enterprise." The efforts of the Republicans are easy enough to sort out. If you're not serving to make a profit for the boss, you have no claim to anything in this society if they can help it. Believe in Social Security? They only say that to avoid a stampede of old folks to the left.
Then there are those who spend most of their time trying to undercut the Republican appeal to the basest moral motivations by nibbling around at the edges of the worst aspects of capitalism, hoping to keep votes in their camp instead of just staying home on election day. They represent little more than window dressing on the ugly in our society (many Dems).
Framing the world as one in which every person has value & a claim to the common good is what socialism is about. Sure, there have been bad (Stalinism) & questionable (Communist crony capitalism in China) forms of socialism, but just as surely there have been bad (a hideous German experiment of the early to mid-20th century) & questionable (the Republican Party for the last 1/2 century & some Dems ) capitalisms.
Democratic socialism asserts that we must include everyone in society, in fact we dare not exclude anyone except at great social cost.
6
Regardless of labels, what I consider the most important point in looking at our current political dysfunction and the list of candidates running is the use of PAC money. Bernie has a campaign financed by the people, not corporate money with strings attached. This speaks volumes to me.
12
In most countries, liberal means pro-business, as in neoliberalism.
1
Thank you. If Barro is going to write an entire article discussing the meaning of "socialism," you'd think he could at least use the term 'liberal' correctly.
In America's case, we use "liberal" to refer to our "left" (which would be considered center-right in many countries) because we have two liberal parties: the Republicans, who are conservative liberals (economically liberal but conservative on social/political issues), and the Democrats, who are slightly progressive liberals (slightly progressive on economic issues, liberal on social/political issues). To distinguish between the two, we started calling the Republicans "conservatives" and the Democrats "liberals."
The sad part is that most Americans don't realize how incredibly "conservative" the Democrats are by European standards.
In America's case, we use "liberal" to refer to our "left" (which would be considered center-right in many countries) because we have two liberal parties: the Republicans, who are conservative liberals (economically liberal but conservative on social/political issues), and the Democrats, who are slightly progressive liberals (slightly progressive on economic issues, liberal on social/political issues). To distinguish between the two, we started calling the Republicans "conservatives" and the Democrats "liberals."
The sad part is that most Americans don't realize how incredibly "conservative" the Democrats are by European standards.
1
The Military is the largest Socialist entity in the U.S.
13
Excellent point, Thomas. I agree.
First figured this out as a mil brat in the mid-late Cold War. They told us how bad socialism was because they purported to do everything the US military did for our parents. Apparently, this is only bad if you fail at it.
Or is it because our troops deserve socialism, but we civilians don't?
That ain't right. Or so I figured out around 15 yo. And if you look around, nations have differing emphases on social and economic systems. It's when you get to extremes that things turn sour for most of us. North Korea vs just about everyone else we do biz with. Or at the other extreme, it's pretty darn hard to come up with any more pro-capitalist enterprise than the US. Funny about those extremes, how people suffer in different ways.
Doubt that Sanders has anything at all extreme in mind nor do those who vote for him. But we could use some FDRish right now, someone to save capitalism from its own morass.
And for Ray next door, can we be just a little Danish, maybe? The best US Gov't cheese comes from there. I used to make pizzas from it in the long ago and far away place called West Germany. It was a lot like Denmark, too. And our socialist military prevailed in the Cold War, probably because they were better at it than the Russians. We're all still patriots, don't want a hand out, just a hand up.
First figured this out as a mil brat in the mid-late Cold War. They told us how bad socialism was because they purported to do everything the US military did for our parents. Apparently, this is only bad if you fail at it.
Or is it because our troops deserve socialism, but we civilians don't?
That ain't right. Or so I figured out around 15 yo. And if you look around, nations have differing emphases on social and economic systems. It's when you get to extremes that things turn sour for most of us. North Korea vs just about everyone else we do biz with. Or at the other extreme, it's pretty darn hard to come up with any more pro-capitalist enterprise than the US. Funny about those extremes, how people suffer in different ways.
Doubt that Sanders has anything at all extreme in mind nor do those who vote for him. But we could use some FDRish right now, someone to save capitalism from its own morass.
And for Ray next door, can we be just a little Danish, maybe? The best US Gov't cheese comes from there. I used to make pizzas from it in the long ago and far away place called West Germany. It was a lot like Denmark, too. And our socialist military prevailed in the Cold War, probably because they were better at it than the Russians. We're all still patriots, don't want a hand out, just a hand up.
You might want to await Senator Sanders' speech on the subject. He has self-identified as a democratic socialist all his adult life because, among other things, he is not willing to trust the economy to control by capitalists. Democracy needs to be deep and effective in reaching the economy in ways Clinton and even "liberals" do not generally articulate. Keynsian pump priming may not always work but still the obligation of a democracy to protect and nurture the needs of the population will exist. Democratic socialists accept no excuses for failing to meet the needs of all the people. Democratic socialists believe in solidarity. We see the oligarchs in control and realize that there is a class struggle, as well as gender, race and other struggles, and that the oligarchs use divide and rule, and that this must end. So actually Sanders is right, socialism properly understood is democracy done right.
13
Correct!!! Well said!!!!
1
Here we go. An obtuse, confusing somewhat ill-stated piece on Bernie Sanders after he has been filling baseball stadiums for months with a very populist message of fairness and equity.
"He just wants more taxes and more regulation than Mrs. Clinton does. "
Wrong! He simply wants to tax the uber rich.
"He just wants more taxes and more regulation than Mrs. Clinton does. "
Wrong! He simply wants to tax the uber rich.
6
Bernie Sanders is incorporating socialist policies into a necessarily capitalist framework. At the very base, Sanders is a capitalist even if he doesn't want to be because at least for the foreseeable future, in order to survive in a global economy, all countries have to incorporate the fundamental elements of capitalism--free markets, competition, and incentives. The description "democratic socialist capitalist" describes the type of capitalist Sanders tries to be---one that incorporates progressive principles. But he is fundamentally a capitalist, not a socialist, because our world, or at least the U.S., runs on capitalistic principles.
5
Mr. Sanders has not once said that he does not want to be a capitalist. He is a democratic socialist-social democrat. He has said very clearly that, and I agree, he opposes oligarchy. Look up the word.
1
Anderson Cooper's question of whether America was ready to elect a "Socialist", painting it as an equivalent of Soviet era communism, was an ignorant question playing off stereotypes of 40 years ago, and not something I'd expect from any educated person today nor of a professional journalist and Yale alumni.
Sander's policies are extreme, but are also directly tied to the most pressing issues of mainstream culture today, that of income inequality, rising lower-class poverty and the diminishing middle class.
Sander's policies are extreme, but are also directly tied to the most pressing issues of mainstream culture today, that of income inequality, rising lower-class poverty and the diminishing middle class.
5
While Mr. Barro makes perfectly valid points, I think he misses the main point. Senator Sanders is working to open up political discussion about ideas that many and in some cases most Americans already support, but which have been marginalized if not eliminated from the national discourse.
The core problem is that the word "Socialist" has been successfully demonized by the right. They have skillfully equated Socialism with Communism (and then Liberalism with Socialism). As a result, any suggestion of a greater positive role for government in improving most people's lives is instantly branded Socialism or worse. This lays the ideological basis for the calls for privatization of Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, National Forests and attacks on the minimum wage, child labor laws, The Affordable Care Act and much else.
So Bernie is calling outing the lie. If those are Socialist policies, then I'm a Socialist. And so are the majority of the American people.
This may seem unimportant from an academic point of view, but I think it is hugely important in opening up rational discussion in the culture as a whole. How many discussions have been shut down because someone chimes in "but that's Socialism"? Fear of this word is in my opinion a hinge pin of the Republican anti-democratic political agenda. Capitalism is a useful tool, but it is not a God, despite what we are told. It is flawed, and the profit motive is not the answer to all things human.
The core problem is that the word "Socialist" has been successfully demonized by the right. They have skillfully equated Socialism with Communism (and then Liberalism with Socialism). As a result, any suggestion of a greater positive role for government in improving most people's lives is instantly branded Socialism or worse. This lays the ideological basis for the calls for privatization of Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, National Forests and attacks on the minimum wage, child labor laws, The Affordable Care Act and much else.
So Bernie is calling outing the lie. If those are Socialist policies, then I'm a Socialist. And so are the majority of the American people.
This may seem unimportant from an academic point of view, but I think it is hugely important in opening up rational discussion in the culture as a whole. How many discussions have been shut down because someone chimes in "but that's Socialism"? Fear of this word is in my opinion a hinge pin of the Republican anti-democratic political agenda. Capitalism is a useful tool, but it is not a God, despite what we are told. It is flawed, and the profit motive is not the answer to all things human.
81
The demonization of Socialism began with the scare tactics of McCarthyism. There was a concerted attempt to equate Socialism with Communism and it was very successful. The two terms were intentionally linked by using such terms as 'collectivism'.
Bernie also rankled a lot of folks when he stated that the stock market measure of economic success is not always a good indicator. It should be understood that taxing profits from trading stocks is half or less of the taxes collected on wealth gained by labor and good business management; That is something few are debating.
Bernie also rankled a lot of folks when he stated that the stock market measure of economic success is not always a good indicator. It should be understood that taxing profits from trading stocks is half or less of the taxes collected on wealth gained by labor and good business management; That is something few are debating.
3
Gee...do you think Communist Russia calling itself "the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and then the fact that the Russians (not to mention the Cubans et al) always referred to their economic and political system as "socialism" ("Viva Cuba Socialista!") might have something to do with it? Gee "fascism" just refers to a bundle of rods tied together and stands for "strength through unity" but anybody who chooses to run for President under the "fascist" label and expects to succeed on the basis of continually explaining their personal interpretation of the word is sadly naive, to put it charitably.
1
Democratic Socialism is what has been present in Europe, especially Scandinavia, since the Second World War. It results in a fabric of basic social services available to all, funded by taxes and managed by a multi-party, democratically elected government. Example: you pay taxes, you get free healthcare, or you get healthcare at a radically reduced cost.
30
Socialism isn't necessarily where the Government owns all the means of production...It means the community (which in some countries was defined as the Government).
Democratic Socialism is where we decide democratically what's Socialized and what's not. We tend to choose some things to be and other things to not be..Instead of everything being 100% Socialist or 100% capitalist.
Also I would say that he's more of a Progressive than a Liberal. Liberals are more individualistic and progressives are a bit more collectivist, but it's similar.
Democratic Socialism is where we decide democratically what's Socialized and what's not. We tend to choose some things to be and other things to not be..Instead of everything being 100% Socialist or 100% capitalist.
Also I would say that he's more of a Progressive than a Liberal. Liberals are more individualistic and progressives are a bit more collectivist, but it's similar.
10
Doug, I think if you look up the definition of socialism in standard dictionaries, it does mean governmental or collective ownership of the means of production. Bernie, we all gather, is not talking about that. I hope he will clarify very soon just what he is talking about. Which parts of our mixed economy does Bernie Sanders think should be owned publicly rather than privately? What does he think would be the optimum mix of public and private for different sectors of our economy? What's the difference, according to Bernie, between being a Sanders-style democratic socialist and being a liberal or a progressive?
Ellen, The word "socialism" does have a definition that includes government-ownership of production. And if you look up Bernie's positions, he is advocating for adequate financial support of laws and community support systems that we already have.
Why don´t you go to his website and read what he has to say.
2
Every modern wealthy democratic nation, including the several cited by Sanders, employs a "mixed" system comprised of free markets and government engagement. This is true irrespective of the various labels applied. The label is not relevant. The only real policy matters have to do with the makeup and internal proportions of that mix. Thus, for example, I argue that the price of oranges would be best left to the free market and that universal health care should not. The reasons for this position are, I think, self-evident; not the least of these is that the former has never produced the latter.
9
But it makes perfect sense that Bernie Sanders is a "democratic socialist capitalist." That's what the Nordic countries are that he cites so often. Sanders simply sees what many, many Americans see: a desperate need to balance excess with economic justice, a desperate need to really shake things up.
Social Democracy is hardly socialism. Otherwise, how would Sweden have such a company as Maersk, which last year built the world's largest container ship? Or Bofors, which supplies the US air force with some kind of nasty cannon?
It's about making a system running down the rails of stupid tragedy a little more sane and moral. It's about making social Darwinism just a hair more reasonable.
Social Democracy is hardly socialism. Otherwise, how would Sweden have such a company as Maersk, which last year built the world's largest container ship? Or Bofors, which supplies the US air force with some kind of nasty cannon?
It's about making a system running down the rails of stupid tragedy a little more sane and moral. It's about making social Darwinism just a hair more reasonable.
11
Maersk is Danish, like Lego, Skype, Grundfos, Novo nordisk, Novozymes and many other global leading companies. But I get your point;)
How about the US Postal Service/Office? Now there is a socialist institution if not loved by all, certainly used by all. Congress even gets to send its mail for free. Then they try to destroy it. With nothing left in place to replace it Like health care for America, after years of the ACA, the republicans have come up with nothing. Fortunately hybrid is a term which most Americans are familiar with since they see it on the trunks of automobiles everywhere, and that is where you find Bernie politically , so to speak. Oddly enough, I read one story where the Chinese do whatever it takes to get something done, and then they call it socialism. Pretty clever.
18
Maybe Sanders is clever enough to come up with an obscure perjorative label which is more of an empty vessel he can fill with meaning for voters than going back to the still-discredited term "liberal".
After 40 years of Orwellinan propaganda, most low information voters still think "liberal bad, conservative good, media liberal". So Bernie confounds them with a term they know little about, but which is intriguing, and as it gets explained, it starts to sound pretty good. Clever like a Fox. (If you can't beat 'em, join 'em).
After 40 years of Orwellinan propaganda, most low information voters still think "liberal bad, conservative good, media liberal". So Bernie confounds them with a term they know little about, but which is intriguing, and as it gets explained, it starts to sound pretty good. Clever like a Fox. (If you can't beat 'em, join 'em).
11
Remember, low info voters also hate the reviled "Obamacare" , but when its formal name "Affordable Care Act" is used they love it.
2
why do americans have any faith in 'labels'
republicans call themselves conservatives....which they are not
they are big government big debtors big war mongers big bail outters
those are not conservative principles
i find it odd that we give credibility to a title one adopts for oneself but
we ignore the truth about what the person's actual deeds are what their history is and how good their judgment is and if they keep their word
and if they don't they have a solid reason why not
republicans call themselves conservatives....which they are not
they are big government big debtors big war mongers big bail outters
those are not conservative principles
i find it odd that we give credibility to a title one adopts for oneself but
we ignore the truth about what the person's actual deeds are what their history is and how good their judgment is and if they keep their word
and if they don't they have a solid reason why not
25
This should be the Times pick
Back in my school days, kids who called all the shots, took all the marbles, made other kids do their homework, then told elaborate lies to their parents and teachers to avoid any blame or punishment, were called bullies.
Bernie's just pointing out who the bullies are...
Bernie's just pointing out who the bullies are...
118
"If supporting Social Security .....makes you a social democrat, the term does nothing to distinguish Mr. Sanders from his opponents." Really? There are quite a few Republican'ts who look upon Social Security as some sort of Ponzi scheme that should be eviscerated. I would think that Senator Sander's position does a lot to distinguish him from these opponents. The arrogant cries of Ebenezer Scrooge echo through the ages: Are there no prisons , are there no work houses - leave me alone in my greed and unfettered capitalism! And we have certainly lurched towards his worldview, as we incarcerate our population to an astonishing degree, snd as we walk back social programs that try help the least of us.
41
Obama the centrist actually offered to drastically cut the big entitlements. Fortunately the far right didn't take yes for an answer.
Labels do get in the way...names are nefarious 'shifters' of meaning. Never resting in the definition of yesterday's conversation but moving to the corridors of tomorrow's voice.
Bernie is campaigning for democracy, he's not running for president-that's a by product of his narrative, not the vision. His world view sees a future where 'capitalism' is a servant to free citizens...an America that embraces people as its greatest asset, not as functionary consumer-markets bled near to death to access health, education and home.
What if we ignored the name, and embraced the message. What if?
Bernie is campaigning for democracy, he's not running for president-that's a by product of his narrative, not the vision. His world view sees a future where 'capitalism' is a servant to free citizens...an America that embraces people as its greatest asset, not as functionary consumer-markets bled near to death to access health, education and home.
What if we ignored the name, and embraced the message. What if?
15
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln
The labels don't matter. I shall be voting for Bernie Sanders because he wants to restore Glass-Steagull, he wants to break up the big banks, he has opposed all those trade agreements that sent our jobs to other countries and he sees health care as a human right. HRC waffled on Keystone, she previously supported the TPP, until she realized it might be unpopular. She supported arming the anti-Assad Syrian rebels (whoever they may be). She is way too cozy with the banks. So Bernie gets my vote (not that it matters because by the time the primaries come to New York the nominee has already been chosen..AND there's a problem with that!)
48
The pendulum has swung so hard to the right. Thank you, FOX News, that Mr Sanders is now labelled a "socialist". A few decades ago he was clearly a "Democrat", and was the kind of person many current "Red States" voted for.
As a person with some knowledge of US history, I'm a bit puzzled by why the US has developed total amnesia of it's past, and an intolerance of any ideas for it's future.
As a person with some knowledge of US history, I'm a bit puzzled by why the US has developed total amnesia of it's past, and an intolerance of any ideas for it's future.
22
It wasn't an accident. The mega rich found the actual history of socialists and anarchists educating people, organizing workers, protesting in the streets and forcing the government to take care of people with "entitlement programs" and civil rights inconvenient.
So they purposely set out to change history, using their control of giant media companies and politicians, to rewrite history so that everything good that happened was because of the "job creators," everything bad that happens is because of government, and especially that helping the poor is socialism is communism is totalitarian dictatorship, so you should never help anyone but the billionaires.
So they purposely set out to change history, using their control of giant media companies and politicians, to rewrite history so that everything good that happened was because of the "job creators," everything bad that happens is because of government, and especially that helping the poor is socialism is communism is totalitarian dictatorship, so you should never help anyone but the billionaires.
Mr. Barro: in the past you've written some pieces I've found questionable. But this is a very helpful and useful piece for those who are uninformed about these important issues, whose number is unfortunately great in this country.
5
Saying that Bernie is just Hillary turned up fu 11 is decidedly unhelpful. Centrist Democrats like Hillary believe that the most important investments are in private capital, machines and facilities. Social democrats believe the most important investments are in people and the infrastructure that lets markets work.
This is an important qualitative difference about what is more important to the human race, people or machines.
This is an important qualitative difference about what is more important to the human race, people or machines.
Thanks a lot for this, it's something that really needed to be said (well, it's been said in a lot of other places, but not the NYT).
Bernie Sanders is a slightly left wing version of Hillary Clinton whose only claim to progressivism is that he's been a decent human being for longer. (Oh, you supported gay rights and desegregation before some of your colleagues? You're now a vocal supporter of the #blacklivesmatter movement? Cool. Wow. Way to go. Thanks for being a good person, and obviously more compassionate/less scheming than Hillary.)
The saddest thing is that our only 'radical' alternative to the one-party system is an old white man who, as Mr Barro pointed out, can't even entertain the idea of nationalizing vital industries like banking and natural resource extraction, to say nothing of eradicating private arms manufacturers. If we're calling him a socialist because he wants universal healthcare, we might as well call Hillary "I represent Wall Street" Clinton a socialist, too, or, ya know, Mitt Romney.
Bernie Sanders is a slightly left wing version of Hillary Clinton whose only claim to progressivism is that he's been a decent human being for longer. (Oh, you supported gay rights and desegregation before some of your colleagues? You're now a vocal supporter of the #blacklivesmatter movement? Cool. Wow. Way to go. Thanks for being a good person, and obviously more compassionate/less scheming than Hillary.)
The saddest thing is that our only 'radical' alternative to the one-party system is an old white man who, as Mr Barro pointed out, can't even entertain the idea of nationalizing vital industries like banking and natural resource extraction, to say nothing of eradicating private arms manufacturers. If we're calling him a socialist because he wants universal healthcare, we might as well call Hillary "I represent Wall Street" Clinton a socialist, too, or, ya know, Mitt Romney.
1
Thanks for being the only other person that seemed to have heard Clinton say she represented Wall Street as senator of NY, which was just before the meltdown, by the way. I thought that was the moment she lost the debate on domestic policy. And the, I voted for Iraq because Obama made me Secretary of State moment, was when she lost on foreign policy.
But of course global corporate media overruled me.
But of course global corporate media overruled me.
Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal corporatist.
Bernie Sanders is a social democrat / democratic socialist / new deal democrat / progressive.
There is a big difference.
Only in an America that has historically suppressed the socialist tradition can journalist confuse reformism like the one espoused by Sanders with Clinton's "liberalism".
Bernie Sanders is a social democrat / democratic socialist / new deal democrat / progressive.
There is a big difference.
Only in an America that has historically suppressed the socialist tradition can journalist confuse reformism like the one espoused by Sanders with Clinton's "liberalism".
48
Unhelpful article by NYT! Despite what you Bernie Sanders you should ask yourself: Do you believe in this:
"You might be a social democrat if you support: a mixed economy, that is, a combination of private enterprise and government spending; social insurance programs that support the old and the poor; a Keynesian economic policy of government borrowing and spending to offset economic recessions; and democratic participation in government and the workplace."
Many Americans do believe in this and to varying degrees, and it is how many democracies operate.
The confusion is HOW MUCH do you really believe in this when the rubber hits the road. Capitalism, by definition, relies on winners and losers (not really based on a person's actual value). The losers can get defined by whether or not you are decide to become a teacher, care for a disabled family member, or are a hedge fund manager (just examples). Losers can also be defined not by the value of a person but on the biases the rest of society pins on you (e.g. discrimination of many sorts), your health / illnesses, how you life started out, etc.
And so, when the rubber hits the road, do you believe -- are you willing to -- live with the consequences of unfair biases in capitalism; are you just okay with tinkering around the edges; or should government do as much as it can to make the system fairer / more equitable? And lastly, if you believe the latter, how are we going to pay for a more equitable system?
"You might be a social democrat if you support: a mixed economy, that is, a combination of private enterprise and government spending; social insurance programs that support the old and the poor; a Keynesian economic policy of government borrowing and spending to offset economic recessions; and democratic participation in government and the workplace."
Many Americans do believe in this and to varying degrees, and it is how many democracies operate.
The confusion is HOW MUCH do you really believe in this when the rubber hits the road. Capitalism, by definition, relies on winners and losers (not really based on a person's actual value). The losers can get defined by whether or not you are decide to become a teacher, care for a disabled family member, or are a hedge fund manager (just examples). Losers can also be defined not by the value of a person but on the biases the rest of society pins on you (e.g. discrimination of many sorts), your health / illnesses, how you life started out, etc.
And so, when the rubber hits the road, do you believe -- are you willing to -- live with the consequences of unfair biases in capitalism; are you just okay with tinkering around the edges; or should government do as much as it can to make the system fairer / more equitable? And lastly, if you believe the latter, how are we going to pay for a more equitable system?
6
For example, winners: JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America. Losers: Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns.
Every Democrat, including conservative, pro-business Democrats like Bill Clinton and friends of Wall Street like Barak Obama, gets labeled as 'socialists' by the right wing noise machine. Why should we worry about electing a guy who is actually proud of the label and the equally pejorative term of liberal and can articulate what these words actually mean in their best sense?
9
thanks
Nice that you're trying to show Sanders is not what many consider is 'socialist'.
As the Senator continues to explain his views, long held over his entire political career, reasonable Americans will see they are in line with what most would call reasonable, and a much needed counterbalance to late capitalism's predatory nature and our rightward lurch.
Billionaires are outright trying to buy our gov't and have done so in states like Kansas.
He's a true patriot, I do believe, blowing the horn to wake us from apathy.
As the Senator continues to explain his views, long held over his entire political career, reasonable Americans will see they are in line with what most would call reasonable, and a much needed counterbalance to late capitalism's predatory nature and our rightward lurch.
Billionaires are outright trying to buy our gov't and have done so in states like Kansas.
He's a true patriot, I do believe, blowing the horn to wake us from apathy.
45
Bernie Sanders does not respect your freedom with regard to your property. It's pretty clear that he believes that your property belongs to the State. Go ahead, ask Sanders how he'll know when he has raised taxes too far. Good luck with getting a coherent answer. Capitalism is about who owns the means of production. No, it's not about the fact of profit and where the profits lie. It's about respecting the right of individuals to conduct business and control the reins of their funds and means of production. Policy minutiae doesn't change how any of that is defined. The bottom line is that yes, Sanders does not respect your freedom. People often miss the point: the reason Capitalism is the right economic system is because it's the only one that's consistent with Freedom.
Um, did you read the article? Bernie Sanders IS a capitalist. He believes in private ownership of the means of production, not nationalization. No politician has proposed eliminating taxation, which means every politician believes, as you say, that some portion of your "property belongs to the state." That's the price we all pay for the privilege of living in a society that HAS a state. Since this is a democracy, we the people have the right to choose how much of our wealth should go to the state, and how much we want the state to provide for us in return. There is nothing anti-capitalist about this equation -- indeed, capitalism cannot exist without it, for it requires a state that is strong enough to provide basic infrastructure and enforce the rule of law, and this in turn requires the state to tax its citizens. In addition, every single capitalist country in the world, including the US, includes some degree of government intervention to protect the public from the excesses of capitalism, from worker safety laws to environmental regulations to speed limits to funding for education and public transportation. Again, this is not "anti-capitalist" in any way. It does not eliminate market incentives or freedom, but simply acknowledges that we have values that capitalism does not promote and that must therefor be supported by the government. Sanders wants to move the needle further in this direction, that's all. He is not destroying capitalism, but supporting society.
2
https://thunderflat.wordpress.com/
Astute article. Hillary's comment about Bernie turning his back on what made this country great was an effort to paint him as a radical non-capitalist, which he isn't. A lot of what Hillary said hasn't gotten enough scrutiny.
Astute article. Hillary's comment about Bernie turning his back on what made this country great was an effort to paint him as a radical non-capitalist, which he isn't. A lot of what Hillary said hasn't gotten enough scrutiny.
32
I totally support Bernie Sanders' positions on the issues. With all due respect, Hillary Clinton is owned by big banks, the oil and gas industry and corporate America. This is just more of the same. It is what we have had my entire lifetime only wealth disparity is worse now than since the 20's. Wealth and business are often touted as Republican values but whoa... why is Goldman paying Hillary Clinton $500,000 for speeches? I like Hillary Clinton but I do not like the money supporting her which its trying to buy the Presidency.
56
Taking the profit out of healthcare and prisons. Sounds like very sensible and centrist ideas to me.
68
I want this democratic socialist to win! If anyone who couldn't see the corrupt side of his opponent is part of the problem of this country. Anyone who relies on billionaires and corporate donation to run her/his campaign is obliged to pay it back when he/she gets elected.
19
Very helpful article. BERNIE may want to simply tone down the "socialist" rhetoric as it seems to have little substance in his policies and go with "liberal" . This would still give him some distinction from HC , at least in label. And it certainly worked in Canada.
7
"He certainly seems like a regular Democrat, only more so." Ha! He seems like a regular Democrat because he is what all Demnocrats used to be, a man on a mission to assist those in great need from the predation of those with little need. Nothing strange about what he says to a person old enough to actually remember Harry Truman and John Kennedy.
14
I remember them, too, and, although I'm not old enough to remember personally FDR and TR, I know enough history to include them in your list of Democrats who championed the ordinary person.
I also remember my father, back in 1952, answering my question about the difference between the two parties: "The Republicans are for the rich, and the Democrats are for the little guy". That's what Democrats used to be like, like Bernie.
I also remember my father, back in 1952, answering my question about the difference between the two parties: "The Republicans are for the rich, and the Democrats are for the little guy". That's what Democrats used to be like, like Bernie.
Mr Barro is flat-out wrong in telling (lecturing?) his readers that the British Labour Party is social democratic, not democratic socialist. In fact, in the British Labour Party's constitution explicitly characterises itself as a democratic socialist party.
From the other side of the pond, it looks like Bernie Sanders is a genuine centre-left populist whose idealism is tempered by an overriding sense of reasonableness. He isn't proposing anything outrageous or particularly radical; he brings to the table a strong desire for economic fairness while remaining sound on foreign policy (unlike many on the left and far right)
From the other side of the pond, it looks like Bernie Sanders is a genuine centre-left populist whose idealism is tempered by an overriding sense of reasonableness. He isn't proposing anything outrageous or particularly radical; he brings to the table a strong desire for economic fairness while remaining sound on foreign policy (unlike many on the left and far right)
13
Thanks for the relatively positive article. Nytimes, and now SNL, seem to be so deeply in with Hillary and her donors that these two formerly progressive institutions have become deeply off-putting. Outside of the top 0.1% this country is really hurting, and it is mostly due to the now extreme influence of money in politics. Bernie's platform is common sense, supported by a majority of Americans, and fairly centrist relative to the rest of the world. Maybe the main stream media could stop marginalizing him - it is a slap in the face to his platform and will be remembered.
16
I suggest that Bernie Sanders rename himself a "Social Democrat" ! This would immediately take away the negative connotation associated with being "Socialist", equated by many in the GOP to being "Communist".
4
Hi Mr. Barron,
You lost the point.
Most Democrat(if) or Republic(an) politicians fervently chant the virtues of "capitalism"/"free enterprise" and current republicans chant and push the mantra of privatize everything.
That is why it is important to emphasize (a) the reality that a mixed economy has proven essential for all democratic societies and most importantly (b) that the differences in the balance is critical to the prosperity and integrity of the nation and the well being of the average citizen.
A republican push to minimize the public component and social support for the average citizen to live a decent, good life makes a HUGE difference.
You may be too young and inexperienced to appreciate this (no insult intended), but it is palpably obvious to many of us.
Can you really imagine Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Jeb Bush saying, "Of course we are all social democrats, no country can be based on "pure" capitalism."?
You lost the point.
Most Democrat(if) or Republic(an) politicians fervently chant the virtues of "capitalism"/"free enterprise" and current republicans chant and push the mantra of privatize everything.
That is why it is important to emphasize (a) the reality that a mixed economy has proven essential for all democratic societies and most importantly (b) that the differences in the balance is critical to the prosperity and integrity of the nation and the well being of the average citizen.
A republican push to minimize the public component and social support for the average citizen to live a decent, good life makes a HUGE difference.
You may be too young and inexperienced to appreciate this (no insult intended), but it is palpably obvious to many of us.
Can you really imagine Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Jeb Bush saying, "Of course we are all social democrats, no country can be based on "pure" capitalism."?
3
Even with all the makeup and lipstick Mr Barro applied to Sanders he's still what he was before, this model has never worked Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, China, etc, comrades wake up!
The main thing that Sander proposes is national health care. Some form of this is actually working very well in almost all other advanced countries, where the cost of health care is on the average about half that in the US. Medicare in the US is a very popular program, which even those who claim to oppose "socialism" generally would not do away with.
A system of national minimal retirement, that is Social Security, is also something that has generally persisted in nominally "capitalist" countries - for example Germany, where it was introduced by Bismarck. Sanders mostly proposes to bring SS up to date to compensate for the lack of increase in the wage/salary tax base as inequality has increased.
The things that Sanders actually proposes are working very well throughout the world.
A system of national minimal retirement, that is Social Security, is also something that has generally persisted in nominally "capitalist" countries - for example Germany, where it was introduced by Bismarck. Sanders mostly proposes to bring SS up to date to compensate for the lack of increase in the wage/salary tax base as inequality has increased.
The things that Sanders actually proposes are working very well throughout the world.
3
"Comrades, wake up"…? I fear the need to be aroused from slumber is from the kind of mental hibernation evidenced in statements such as "this model has never worked in (...fill in the blank)." Senator Sanders not NOT advocate governmental ownership of the principal means of production -- and statements that he does are evidence of a comatose separation from reality.
I am surprised that you are not aware of another Presidential Candidate that dismissed Capitalism. His name is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Asked by a reporter whether he was a Capitalist FDR Replied:
"No, I am not."
Are you a socialist?
"No, I am not."
Well, what are you?
"I am a Democrat and a Christian."
He went on say he was really a pragmatist and would try anything, if it didn't work, try something else, but above all do something.
Nearly all talking heads last March dismissed Bernie Sanders. He was a socialist and couldn’t raise any money. He wouldn’t turn out voters to hear him rant about economic issues. One DC Dumbo even said Bernie couldn’t tell jokes, and that was a fatal flaw.
Um… Sometime people know instinctively who really is on their side. Over a million have already written Bernie checks. Doesn’t seem to matter what you call him, Bernie comes across as real.
Asked by a reporter whether he was a Capitalist FDR Replied:
"No, I am not."
Are you a socialist?
"No, I am not."
Well, what are you?
"I am a Democrat and a Christian."
He went on say he was really a pragmatist and would try anything, if it didn't work, try something else, but above all do something.
Nearly all talking heads last March dismissed Bernie Sanders. He was a socialist and couldn’t raise any money. He wouldn’t turn out voters to hear him rant about economic issues. One DC Dumbo even said Bernie couldn’t tell jokes, and that was a fatal flaw.
Um… Sometime people know instinctively who really is on their side. Over a million have already written Bernie checks. Doesn’t seem to matter what you call him, Bernie comes across as real.
25
Part of the problem for the general election is that the words socialist, communist, and fascist, have been conflated and confused on the right. They believe that Mr. Obama is 'all of the above.' In that mindset, amplified by right-wing talk radio and encouraged by GOP politicians, anyone who supports government social programs is a socialist who is trying to take the hard earned money of middle class "real Americans" and hand it to the lazy, undeserving underclass. The socialist label (no matter the words it is partnered with) is deadly in the current political climate. Sanders would not get a fair hearing. He would be drown out by the opposition screaming the horrors of "socialism" he would visit on the country as he "destroys" it.
2
The real difference between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton, and other so-called liberals, is that he means what he says and will fight for it, while Clinton is just another opportunist saying whatever will get her elected. That is why Wall Street has contributed so much to her campaign and her SuperPacs. A vote for Clinton is a vote for Wall Street's continuing domination of our country.
21
Yesterday Canada's Liberal party won a resounding victory promising Bernie's economic and social programs. While many of Bernie's programs are already in place what was new was Canadian's eagerness to reject austerity and balanced budgets and impose higher taxes and investment into Canada's future.
Twentieth century labels are indeed meaningless as on economic issues the liberals were far to the left of my social democrats. As we see companies like Walmart and Exxon start to hit the wall maybe it is time to realize that big labor and big business are two peas in the same pod and our salvation lies in government of the people by the the people and for the people. For an avowed democratic socialist Bernie doesn't seem to cater much to unions but does seem to respond well to the needs of America's future.
Twentieth century labels are indeed meaningless as on economic issues the liberals were far to the left of my social democrats. As we see companies like Walmart and Exxon start to hit the wall maybe it is time to realize that big labor and big business are two peas in the same pod and our salvation lies in government of the people by the the people and for the people. For an avowed democratic socialist Bernie doesn't seem to cater much to unions but does seem to respond well to the needs of America's future.
18
Congrats guys! Lead by example so we have yet one more nation to point to when it comes to functional social systems that don't tank an economy. Unfortunately, we're stuck under red scare and decades old spook labels used to oppress the middle and lower classes into voting against their best interests.
8
Yes....many congratulations!
We want to be able to look north for examples of how the policies and principles espoused by Bernie Sanders are implemented and how they can work in beneficial ways to improve the lives of the 99% here to your south.
We want to be able to look north for examples of how the policies and principles espoused by Bernie Sanders are implemented and how they can work in beneficial ways to improve the lives of the 99% here to your south.
4
A proper government is one whose objective is: Protection of Individual Rights and Individual Freedoms. This is the only kind of government that supports Humans living best. Inasmuch as the only interference with Individual Rights and Individual Freedoms comes from the use of physical force, a proper government is one that prevents the initiation of physical force (or its threat) against its citizens. This includes: an internal police force to prevent crime; a military to prevent foreign countries from attacking; and a justice system to arbitrate matters of civil dispute between two individuals who disagree.
Sanders is wrong to call a police force a "socialist institution" - it is a proper government service. And because fire knows no boundaries, a firefighting force is likewise not a socialist institution - it is a proper government service, to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals from arbitrary destruction.
Bernie Sanders - and all others who believe government should interfere in the daily lives of individuals - believes that you don't know the Right Way to live your life, so you must be forced to do so. This is a violation of our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Sanders is wrong to call a police force a "socialist institution" - it is a proper government service. And because fire knows no boundaries, a firefighting force is likewise not a socialist institution - it is a proper government service, to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals from arbitrary destruction.
Bernie Sanders - and all others who believe government should interfere in the daily lives of individuals - believes that you don't know the Right Way to live your life, so you must be forced to do so. This is a violation of our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
5
Nonsense! There are many means besides physical force to restrict individual rights and freedoms and cause injury. Economic methods of domination are obvious and they do count with backing of physical force by the state aparatus. That's why freedoms must be guaranteed in the realm of economic relationships, against oppressive and exploitative economic practices by the powerful, and that's why socialism is the natural state of a true free and democratic republic. The alternative is aristocracy, plutocracy, rule by corporatist oligarchies.
14
He isn't wrong at all. It's a public service funded by taxes that serves EVERYONE. You don't like the boogie man word "socialist"? Well, that's your own fault. The internet has been around for decades now so people have no excuse for still falling prey to the same red scare propaganda.
8
Fair points. Except for one:
We have a LOT of recent history which suggests people, to a large extent, ARE NOT capable of making good decisions about their lives. That goes for commercial institutions as well.
Case in point: the housing bubble.
We have a LOT of recent history which suggests people, to a large extent, ARE NOT capable of making good decisions about their lives. That goes for commercial institutions as well.
Case in point: the housing bubble.
1
I'm on record in more than one of these comment spaces as saying a) Bernie Sanders is confused, b) Bernie Sanders is unelectable, and c) Bernie Sanders is the populist, leftist, cranky, counterbalance to Donald Trump, who seems to be holding on to his right-wing, redneck, reality-TV supporters far longer than is good for the country. Both of these candidates will be gone a year from now, except as write-in candidates, and bleed-off votes from the respective Hillary and Jeb campaigns still going on at that time.
Presidential elections in America are like dating and romance: we often go out with people we find exciting for far too long, and neglect to respond to those who would work out for us in longer term commitments. But, once we are done with the exciting dates, we realize it will never work out with such people in the long run because they are difficult people to get along with.
7
Dating and romance - then marriage and acrimonious divorce. I'm a Democratic voter at the divorce stage - and it isn't "no fault."
4
I think you are wrong on both counts. Perhaps you have't noticed how bad things have become, Americans are not going to nominate more of the same.
As for Trump vs Bernie, you only have to pay attention to what they're saying to see the difference. But they both incite the same desire for an anti-establishment candidate.
As for Trump vs Bernie, you only have to pay attention to what they're saying to see the difference. But they both incite the same desire for an anti-establishment candidate.
4
The fact that you would compare Bernie Sanders, who is all about the issues, to Donald Trump, who is all about ego, shows that you really don't understand what you're even saying.
6
Josh Barro writes today: "... Social democracy, Mr. Sanders will have you remember, is not what they were up to in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...."
That would be the state capitalism of Joseph Stalin, not the communism of Leon Trotsky.
That would be the state capitalism of Joseph Stalin, not the communism of Leon Trotsky.
3
I have always considered myself a "left-wing democrat" and I believe that would be a more accurate name tag for Sanders. It is Conservatives who love to throw the word Socialist around.
10
Uh, I think it is Bernie himself who uses that term. He is free to call himself whatever he wants. Everyone else, including Conservatives, are just using Bernie's chosen name tag.
2
The fact that by calling himself a socialist he brings attention to the fact that we already have a number of social institutions is a good enough reason to be thankful that he has gone down this road
54
In the late 19th century the Swedish left, followed by the rest of Scandinavia, made a historic decision which still applies to this day. Capitalism generates wealth in a way that pure socialist societies are not likely to do. The solution? Capitalism managed by socialists. Go Bernie!
72
Agree. It's the only system that seems to work. Why not adopt it??
8
Good to see this discussion here. Sanders certainly dropped the ball when he missed the opportunity in the debate to explain what he means by "socialist". But it is great that he's got people talking about this, and restoring the value of a term that has been demonized for years by Americans who don't understand it.
10
Agreed. He really dropped the ball. And then again right after when neither he nor Bill Maher (on the latter's show) could define it concisely.
1
Capitalism, especially in its unbridled, laissez-faire form, is in fact just the substitute for feudalism. Ms. Clinton should reject it. Bernie Sanders is hacking off points from her because he is truthful about it. And he can be truthful, because he is not in the pocket of Big Business.
65
As usual, labels applied flippantly obfuscate more than they clarify.
The essence is in the details.
The essence is in the details.
7
A little while ago I was on an airplane arriving in San Francisco. A passenger seated next to me remarked that he assumed I would vote for Mrs. Clinton because she was a woman. I told him I already had my Bernie bumper sticker and he spluttered, "But he is a socialist!" Unless Sanders can convince those people that his own label, like most labels, doesn't matter there will be problems.
12
Bernie's use of the word socialism is not confusing if you have been paying attention to how the GOP has been using that word over the past decade to demonize anybody who feels that we, as a society, should support our most vulnerable citizens. Bernie is using an emotionally loaded term as an invitation to the GOP to attack him for standing up for what some of us (hopefully most of us) understand to be moral and just.
64
The French government of François Hollande is Socialist. Did they nationalize the banks and steel mills? of course not.
Socialist has to be understood as Social-Democrat, as in FDR or Truman.
Socialist has to be understood as Social-Democrat, as in FDR or Truman.
30
I was invited to have breakfast with a huge table of older men recently when they noticed a Bernie Sanders sticker on my car. I thought it would be like Daniel in the Lion's Den, but we had a good time.
Here is what I told them:
All countries are socialist to some extent as government is a collectivist activity. The only real difference is to what degree.
In the context of where we were having the discussion I pointed out the following socialist institutions :
The Water that made their coffee and the Electricity that heated it were from a city owned utility.
The road they drove to breakfast was built by the state.
The Police, Fire and EMS services are city provided.
The Levee District that keep the Mississippi River at bay is Socialist.
The public schools, the local community College and the very beloved University of Arkansas Razorbacks are all state owned.
The airport, river port, and Interstates that are so essential to local commerce were built with Federal and State money.
The building that we sere sitting in was financed by Federal community development bonds.
Most of their houses were purchased with either a VA, FMHA or FHA loan.
Many went to college with Federally Guaranteed Student Loans or Pell Grants.
The internet that we all enjoy was started as DARPA Net within the Defense Department and was given to academia.
The price supports that stabilize commodity prices for our farmers is socialist.
I think I won, and Bernie can as well.
Here is what I told them:
All countries are socialist to some extent as government is a collectivist activity. The only real difference is to what degree.
In the context of where we were having the discussion I pointed out the following socialist institutions :
The Water that made their coffee and the Electricity that heated it were from a city owned utility.
The road they drove to breakfast was built by the state.
The Police, Fire and EMS services are city provided.
The Levee District that keep the Mississippi River at bay is Socialist.
The public schools, the local community College and the very beloved University of Arkansas Razorbacks are all state owned.
The airport, river port, and Interstates that are so essential to local commerce were built with Federal and State money.
The building that we sere sitting in was financed by Federal community development bonds.
Most of their houses were purchased with either a VA, FMHA or FHA loan.
Many went to college with Federally Guaranteed Student Loans or Pell Grants.
The internet that we all enjoy was started as DARPA Net within the Defense Department and was given to academia.
The price supports that stabilize commodity prices for our farmers is socialist.
I think I won, and Bernie can as well.
222
Well said, but that is only a small part of the story. Think food and drug safety, auto and airline safety unimaginable 30 years ago, flu vaccines, bridges and buildings that very rarely collapse unexpectedly, and on and on and on.
5
Yes, the list is very long. People just seem to forget when it works as it is supposed to.
7
Thank goodness Bernie has an army of volunteers helping him to spread the good word. We need a million more interactions like that between citizens of this country. What you just described is great American politics.
7
As others have pointed out, the difficulty is not with the candidates, but with the obsession to put labels on everyone. For example, how can you label TR? Progressive Conservative?
The way to distinguish the candidates is thru their policy proposals.
Let me point out a policy that Stephanie Kelton, Bernie's economic advisor, has proposed which is substantially different from the rest of the pack. She has proposed that the federal gov guarantee a decent transition job or training for such a job to everyone able to work. This would get people working and producing and spending which would increase the number of private jobs. Our people are our most important resource. It would also allow us to eliminate most forms of welfare.
See the data at http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
The way to distinguish the candidates is thru their policy proposals.
Let me point out a policy that Stephanie Kelton, Bernie's economic advisor, has proposed which is substantially different from the rest of the pack. She has proposed that the federal gov guarantee a decent transition job or training for such a job to everyone able to work. This would get people working and producing and spending which would increase the number of private jobs. Our people are our most important resource. It would also allow us to eliminate most forms of welfare.
See the data at http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
5
All the labels are indeed unimportant. As with most things the devil is in the details. I'm not a Sanders supporter but he at least articulates the details he advocates. Were he to get elected his ability to implement them is a entirely different question and there is the rub. Whether very left or very right the big ideas still require the legislatures to support change. For that reason change is likely to be incremental no matter who the next President is.
4
So happy to see a clear explanation of Sander's beliefs. He was a great mayor of Burlington and an ethical senator, really cares about people, and has never wavered on his philosophy. This interesting article might have spoken of the early growth of socialist ideals that powered the labor movement and muckrakers in our history. We, as a country, have practiced socialism in action in our past ignored conservatives and the far right. To ignore history is a dangerous thing.
10
Sadly most Americans do not fully understand the term "socialism" or what it means to be called a "socialist." They have a knee jerk negative reaction. But the truth is that America (yes, I mean the one that is considered to be exceptional) has a substantial portion of its economy in the public sector. We are all fortunate to have social security, unemployment insurance, SNAP, and other programs that provide a safety net.
Does that mean we have a socialist economy? No. It only means that we have programs that are common to many modern economies that believe in providing maximum security to its citizens.
Bernie Sanders is exactly what he says he is - a believer in a free market economy, one in which the law of the jungle (might is right) is reined in with common sense and decency.
Does that mean we have a socialist economy? No. It only means that we have programs that are common to many modern economies that believe in providing maximum security to its citizens.
Bernie Sanders is exactly what he says he is - a believer in a free market economy, one in which the law of the jungle (might is right) is reined in with common sense and decency.
86
Correct. You've pointed out the difference between "socialism" and "socialized."
They are not the same thing.
One small correction: Bernie Sanders is NOT a believer in the "free market economy". He is a believer in a mixed economy, which is what we have.
They are not the same thing.
One small correction: Bernie Sanders is NOT a believer in the "free market economy". He is a believer in a mixed economy, which is what we have.
Actually, the capitalistic jungle is reined in by regulation and laws. Remember that Hillary said during the debate that "she went to Wall St before the crash and told them to "Cut it out!". Unsurprisingly, that common sense and decency meant little to the Banksters...
"If supporting Social Security and public firefighting makes you a social democrat, the term does nothing to distinguish Mr. Sanders from his opponents."
Sure it does. Many now want to privatize all of these, including the military (military "contractors" = mercenaries), prisons, etc.
Sanders is clearly saying that in this mixed economy of ours it is not just OK, but is actually a good thing to make public some things -- wouldn't it be better to have a truly public health care system (no profit, no advertising, except for informational ads on getting vaccines, reasonable salaries for administrators), publicly owned and operated pharmaceutical companies (building on university labs and NHS and other already existing government funding), publicly owned military suppliers (no more Lockheed vs. Boeing and cost over-rides and systems the military does not want)?
Whereas even some Democrats only reluctantly favor some of these, Sanders sees these as seriously commendable. He is saying "the social part of our democracy is a good thing -- let's call it socialist democracy!" [picture Larry David here, a strong affirmation and then an avuncular smile]). We can be nice to each other even in a mostly market-based economy. Corporations can be good citizens -- it can be written into their licenses and into IRS regulations (so that no corporation will be able to say they would be sued by their shareholders if they spent some of their money on doing good). "Social democracy" --not bad.
Sure it does. Many now want to privatize all of these, including the military (military "contractors" = mercenaries), prisons, etc.
Sanders is clearly saying that in this mixed economy of ours it is not just OK, but is actually a good thing to make public some things -- wouldn't it be better to have a truly public health care system (no profit, no advertising, except for informational ads on getting vaccines, reasonable salaries for administrators), publicly owned and operated pharmaceutical companies (building on university labs and NHS and other already existing government funding), publicly owned military suppliers (no more Lockheed vs. Boeing and cost over-rides and systems the military does not want)?
Whereas even some Democrats only reluctantly favor some of these, Sanders sees these as seriously commendable. He is saying "the social part of our democracy is a good thing -- let's call it socialist democracy!" [picture Larry David here, a strong affirmation and then an avuncular smile]). We can be nice to each other even in a mostly market-based economy. Corporations can be good citizens -- it can be written into their licenses and into IRS regulations (so that no corporation will be able to say they would be sued by their shareholders if they spent some of their money on doing good). "Social democracy" --not bad.
68
It is important and necessary to educate the American people on the facts that we have a mixed economy with capitalist and socialist elements, and that many of the very best and essential government programs (Social Security, Medicare, nutrition programs, and unemployment insurance are indeed socialist. The 19th century German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck began these programs and non one could consider him left-wing).
Here's the other point: the Republicans hate these programs and at every opportunity try to dismantle them despite their overwhelming popularity with the American people. But the Republicans don't work for the American people. They work for the 1% and the corporations who donate to their campaigns and then who hire them, or their family members, in cushy jobs when they leave office. They try to sucker us for our votes, and as we see, they are successful too often in fooling us, using by employing wedge issues.
Americans need to vote their economic self-interest and not be distracted by other non-issues.
Here's the other point: the Republicans hate these programs and at every opportunity try to dismantle them despite their overwhelming popularity with the American people. But the Republicans don't work for the American people. They work for the 1% and the corporations who donate to their campaigns and then who hire them, or their family members, in cushy jobs when they leave office. They try to sucker us for our votes, and as we see, they are successful too often in fooling us, using by employing wedge issues.
Americans need to vote their economic self-interest and not be distracted by other non-issues.
7
The answer Bernie should have given to the "socialist" question is this:
"When Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security and the VA, they called him a socialist. When Harry Truman made it so every child in America had at least 5 square meals a week, they called him a socialist. When Lyndon Johnson created Medicare and Medicaid and declared war on poverty, they called him a socialist. I call myself a socialist because I agree with all of them!"
And Mr Sanders is indeed interested in nationalizing the health care industry. Which by all appearances would be the right move - every other country that's done that ends up with better health care at lower costs.
"When Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security and the VA, they called him a socialist. When Harry Truman made it so every child in America had at least 5 square meals a week, they called him a socialist. When Lyndon Johnson created Medicare and Medicaid and declared war on poverty, they called him a socialist. I call myself a socialist because I agree with all of them!"
And Mr Sanders is indeed interested in nationalizing the health care industry. Which by all appearances would be the right move - every other country that's done that ends up with better health care at lower costs.
295
Being called a socialist is almost a rite of passage in American politics. You mentioned that Roosevelt's programs were called "socialist".
Well, when Herbert Hoover finally acted near the end of his term to help remedy the effects of the Great Depression, guess what FDR called him?
If you said "socialist," you guessed correctly.
So it's become a fairly meaningless term in US politics.
Well, when Herbert Hoover finally acted near the end of his term to help remedy the effects of the Great Depression, guess what FDR called him?
If you said "socialist," you guessed correctly.
So it's become a fairly meaningless term in US politics.
1
It's commonly stated that the US tax burden is less than in western Europe - but of course this omits property taxes, which are very heavy in many middle-class areas of the US, and pay for many of the things (eg education) which are part of federal and state taxes in other countries. See for example http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/25/the-most-tax-fri...
To a large extent if you want to live in a safe, healthy, pleasant, educated place in the US you end up paying more taxes than anywhere in western Europe.
To a large extent if you want to live in a safe, healthy, pleasant, educated place in the US you end up paying more taxes than anywhere in western Europe.
3
@Paul Adams
Stony Brook
Claptrap. Your link is to a cost of doing business survey and as far as I can see is focused on major cities. It has nothing to do with the overall tax burden borne by ordinary citizens. And where do you get the weird idea that property taxes don't exist in Western Europe? The notion that residents of the US are bearing a higher tax burden than those of Britain, France or Germany (as I can attest from personal knowledge) when all direct and indirect taxes are rolled in is total nonsense.
Stony Brook
Claptrap. Your link is to a cost of doing business survey and as far as I can see is focused on major cities. It has nothing to do with the overall tax burden borne by ordinary citizens. And where do you get the weird idea that property taxes don't exist in Western Europe? The notion that residents of the US are bearing a higher tax burden than those of Britain, France or Germany (as I can attest from personal knowledge) when all direct and indirect taxes are rolled in is total nonsense.
9
Who cares: the point is always: what do you get for the taxes. I live in Europe. My property taxes on home ownership were low. My tax burden in Germany e.g., very good, especially considering the benefits. I would not trade Europe in for anything. Top culture, excellent public schooling, no idiots running around with guns and multiple chips on their shoulders.
In fact, I took German citizenship.
In fact, I took German citizenship.
8
That last sentence is key: "if you want to live in a safe, healthy, pleasant, educated place in the US..." The over-reliance on property taxes only further enhances inequality in the US, as wealthier municipalities have vastly more money to pay for services. Here in the UK, for example, all education spending is allotted at the national level, and needier districts are given MORE money per pupil. When I explain that in the US, schools are funded by property taxes, and so poorer districts have LESS money, they look at me like I'm crazy.
What it boils down to is that Mr Sanders wants to do the "good" socialist stuff, not the "bad" socialist stuff.
You can hem and haw about the labels. But he wants to reign in Wall Street, he's opposed to TPP--his focus is on American workers, as he's said over and over.
And he's opposed to the way money interests have taken over politics and shafted middle class Americans. That is not a standard Democratic view.
But it is, perhaps, a democratic socialist capitalist view.
Whatever he calls himself, he has my vote.
You can hem and haw about the labels. But he wants to reign in Wall Street, he's opposed to TPP--his focus is on American workers, as he's said over and over.
And he's opposed to the way money interests have taken over politics and shafted middle class Americans. That is not a standard Democratic view.
But it is, perhaps, a democratic socialist capitalist view.
Whatever he calls himself, he has my vote.
144
Well said. I affirm my vote for Bernie!
6
I love Bernie, too. OK, now he has two votes. But the point of this very good and insightful article - and also my very strong belief and fear - is that with the socialist label neither Bernie Sanders or anyone else will win an election for president in this country now or in the foreseeable future. And the great irony is that he is not a socialist! But he will be "hoist on his own petard" for calling himself one.
The most successful institutions in in the U.S. are "socialist." The Hunger Games is an interesting allegory about what happens when extreme right-wingers rule. I have been more and more stuck at how Collins created this world from our own. Indeed, ordinary young people fight our wars for the good of the privileged class, though not for entertainment, but for their profit, and those in 3rd world countries work for a pittance. Low income people still work in dangerous occupations with superficial protections. Looking at Baltimore and Detroit, for example, illustrates the way folks are kept in poverty through lack of decent jobs, housing, education. I was struck by today's news article about prisoners being forced to give blood, but inmates are forced to work for the profit of the state and few rehabilitation services are offered to help develop a new life after release. While these comparisons with the young adult books may seem extreme, attending to the news makes it less so. Bernie Sanders illuminates the issues, a major reason for the political parties being truly anxious about his popularity.
87
Bernie Sanders is a "commonist survivalist". This means to reach the pinnacle of survival in a society, we must be aware of the worth of our fellow citizens to our own success. Republicans don't believe this, and their attempts to foster "rugged individualism" has flawed underpinnings. The phrase "self made" is an oxymoron. Without proper education, a secure environment, decent health, and proper backing success does not come. Our very reason for forming societies is to benefit from others so we can express our own individuality.
In order for capitalism to succeed it takes equal respect from the owners of industry and the people who work for them. America's most prosperous times were when collective bargaining resulted in a positive sum game. It was a time when the general population retained political power.
Profit is deserved when a product is produced that adds to the general good, and owners and workers share fairly in the fruits of both their labors. The balance should not favor one side over the other. We all have to share the same space.
It is time to embrace our natural tendency to form a society. Why? From Thomas Paine:
"the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same"
Present day Republicans reject our very nature. Senator Sanders understands in stark contrast what optimal survival means.
In order for capitalism to succeed it takes equal respect from the owners of industry and the people who work for them. America's most prosperous times were when collective bargaining resulted in a positive sum game. It was a time when the general population retained political power.
Profit is deserved when a product is produced that adds to the general good, and owners and workers share fairly in the fruits of both their labors. The balance should not favor one side over the other. We all have to share the same space.
It is time to embrace our natural tendency to form a society. Why? From Thomas Paine:
"the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same"
Present day Republicans reject our very nature. Senator Sanders understands in stark contrast what optimal survival means.
108
So many of us don't care what term Mr. Barro is comfortable with, especially after reading this deliberately confused article about Bernie Sanders. Mr. Sanders is rallying support for a system that is more fair and more inclined toward the common good. He understands that we can't be successful as a nation unless we attain a level of basic equality that allows working people a measure of peace of mind and a chance to better themselves. Why not just call him sensible?
315
Last night I went to hear Robert Reich give a lecture here in Seattle. My favorite moment in the evening was when he pronounced, "Instead of talking about all these 'isms', let's talk about if it's working!"
1
People can't get away from using labels. Apparently they're a useful shorthand. "The word is not the thing" is not an internalized concept. If Mr. Sanders could drop or minimize his use of the word "socialist", he could appeal to a wider audience than the choir he's assembled and preaches to. Is he too much of an old codger, excuse the label, to change his delivery and avoid labeling himself?
1
Uga Muga has it right.
People hear "socialist" and see Stalin. Rightly or wrongly--in this case wrongly--that's a real perception had by millions of people.
If Bernie is unable to get over the hump, one of the main reasons will be because he was horrible at avoiding the loaded labels being thrown around alongside his name.
At this point, he's in too deep and needs to stick with educating people about the term, but honestly it doesn't matter what explanation he has behind why he calls himself a socialist, a democratic socialist, or anything else. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, good or bad, or up or down.
People, particularly the ones who aren't already in his camp, don't want to think that much. And they won't. That's why labels and perceptions are so powerful.
People hear "socialist" and see Stalin. Rightly or wrongly--in this case wrongly--that's a real perception had by millions of people.
If Bernie is unable to get over the hump, one of the main reasons will be because he was horrible at avoiding the loaded labels being thrown around alongside his name.
At this point, he's in too deep and needs to stick with educating people about the term, but honestly it doesn't matter what explanation he has behind why he calls himself a socialist, a democratic socialist, or anything else. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, good or bad, or up or down.
People, particularly the ones who aren't already in his camp, don't want to think that much. And they won't. That's why labels and perceptions are so powerful.
1
Even "very liberal" candidates wind up being called "socialist" in this country so I'm glad Sanders is giving us the opportunity to discuss what these never-precise terms might mean.
At any rate, it's really the case that Clinton's platform is Sanders' but on tranquilizers for people who don't like the word "socialism". Her proposals have been a response to his, not the other way around; it's hard to believe that income inequality would be on her agenda without Sanders showing it polls well. Most critically, Sanders has made financial corruption of our politics absolutely central to his campaign. "Liberal" or "socialist" Sanders looks independent and Clinton looks bought by the interests that have corrupted our democracy.
At any rate, it's really the case that Clinton's platform is Sanders' but on tranquilizers for people who don't like the word "socialism". Her proposals have been a response to his, not the other way around; it's hard to believe that income inequality would be on her agenda without Sanders showing it polls well. Most critically, Sanders has made financial corruption of our politics absolutely central to his campaign. "Liberal" or "socialist" Sanders looks independent and Clinton looks bought by the interests that have corrupted our democracy.
183
General comment, not for or against Bernie Sanders.
German and British healthcare works for relatively smaller countries such as these because the cost is subsidized by Americans. GSK, for example, is not allowed to charge the same prices in Britain that it does in the US. (Not to mention the taxes GSK pays the British government on profits earned in the US.) Someone has to make up the difference. So when you talk about socialist healthcare, you're ignoring the globalized nature of healthcare itself. You can't remove the "profit motive" in any one country unless you remove it everywhere.
German and British healthcare works for relatively smaller countries such as these because the cost is subsidized by Americans. GSK, for example, is not allowed to charge the same prices in Britain that it does in the US. (Not to mention the taxes GSK pays the British government on profits earned in the US.) Someone has to make up the difference. So when you talk about socialist healthcare, you're ignoring the globalized nature of healthcare itself. You can't remove the "profit motive" in any one country unless you remove it everywhere.
3
Do you feel that it is right for Americans either directly or indirectly to subsidize the pharmaceutical industries obscene profits and endless advertising? I have not problem with investors getting a decent return but frankly, we Americans are being played as chumps with the eager support of our bought and paid for Congress.
144
The reason our drug prices are sky high is "marketing."
Prof Alan Sager of BU has studied drug companies. He has found that they spend about 11% of their budget on R & D, 19% on profit (about twice the average of all industries) and 34% on "Marketing". This includes not only the odious TV and magazine ads, but the thousands of unqualified "pushers" who visit physicians' offices to get them to use various drugs and the many payments to doctors such as fake educational conferences at fancy resorts and stipends to give talks to other doctors based on faulty information supplied by the drug company. The purpose of all this "marketing" is to get us to use drugs we do not need or to use expensive new drugs even when cheaper older drugs are as effective or even more effective. It is clear that we could cut drug prices by at least a third and not impact research at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/the-drug-pushers/4714/
http://dcc2.bumc.bu.edu/hs/sager/pdfs/020402/Pharmaceutical%20Marketing%...
Prof Alan Sager of BU has studied drug companies. He has found that they spend about 11% of their budget on R & D, 19% on profit (about twice the average of all industries) and 34% on "Marketing". This includes not only the odious TV and magazine ads, but the thousands of unqualified "pushers" who visit physicians' offices to get them to use various drugs and the many payments to doctors such as fake educational conferences at fancy resorts and stipends to give talks to other doctors based on faulty information supplied by the drug company. The purpose of all this "marketing" is to get us to use drugs we do not need or to use expensive new drugs even when cheaper older drugs are as effective or even more effective. It is clear that we could cut drug prices by at least a third and not impact research at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/the-drug-pushers/4714/
http://dcc2.bumc.bu.edu/hs/sager/pdfs/020402/Pharmaceutical%20Marketing%...
28
@RSS,
the reason drug prices are so high in the U.S. Is because we refuse to negotiate a national price schedule. The other countries do.
So, no we can fix our part without having to forge a global solution. We just have to reduce the level of corruption in our Congress in order to pass proper laws.
the reason drug prices are so high in the U.S. Is because we refuse to negotiate a national price schedule. The other countries do.
So, no we can fix our part without having to forge a global solution. We just have to reduce the level of corruption in our Congress in order to pass proper laws.
16
America's right wing has already redefined socialism in the public square, accusing anyone who thinks it's worthwhile to provide government services and pay for it with taxes as a 'socialist.' Until now, people ran from that word as if it were coincident with communist.
All Mr. Sanders is doing is accepting the American right's redefinition. When somebody wants to raise taxes to do repairs needed to keep bridges from collapsing, Republicans call them socialists. Many of Republicans speak of privatizing the roads, charging tolls every few miles. Well, guess what? Bernie Sanders wants to keep the public roads public. He calls himself a socialist and defines the word one they get a chance to use that word first.
And that's why Senator Sanders has my money, and he may get more of it. I don't care if he wins the nomination or the presidency. He's changing the rules of the game. He might lose the election and still save the nation.
All Mr. Sanders is doing is accepting the American right's redefinition. When somebody wants to raise taxes to do repairs needed to keep bridges from collapsing, Republicans call them socialists. Many of Republicans speak of privatizing the roads, charging tolls every few miles. Well, guess what? Bernie Sanders wants to keep the public roads public. He calls himself a socialist and defines the word one they get a chance to use that word first.
And that's why Senator Sanders has my money, and he may get more of it. I don't care if he wins the nomination or the presidency. He's changing the rules of the game. He might lose the election and still save the nation.
276
What do you mean, "speak of privatizing roads"? In that's what they do here in Northern Virginia. The beltway is packed with cars except for the "Lexus Lanes" that not only are empty and underused, but are 65 mph unlike the 'prole' side of 495 that is 55 mph. Going from 10 miles (Braddock to Tysons) costs $14 or more on a bad day. And where does that money go? Australia and TransUrban.
Some people really want as the saying goes "to have their cake and eat it too" and think of themselves as exceptional, but they just like every person on the planet live with benefits provided by the earlier mentioned exchange.
We are all plain old human beings who simply wouldn't get by without the contribution of other plain old humans.
Nobody asks to be born and no one gets out alive. It is time we stopped with the stupid arguing, listened to reason and worked together while we have the chance.
It is also past time for all of those who invented a heavenly afterlife, as a consolation used to erase the hell those who seek power created, to stop invoking their invented divinities, but most importantly for the rest of us to stop believing their empty stories and demand freedom from the sometime literal and always mental slavery they espouse.
Bernie Sanders speaks a truth that none who covet wealth want to hear. If however as a nation and as a world we are to survive we should heed his words and not be confused by the dreams and myths spun by those who cannot see the truth of our existence.
This is an important juncture for our nation and following the same path will lead us closer to the destruction of values we know must be respected. This is not the time to parse solid ideas until they are frayed beyond recognition. Listen, think, judge, and vote.