Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

A friend wrote to me expressing concerns about trends in the Democratic party. I replied:

I understand your concerns that the Democratic Socialists (the DSA) may become fodder for the conservative juggernaut. Some members of the DSA do have some crazy ideas, and Fox News will harp on them endlessly. But those candidates identifying as Democratic Socialists who have been successful have not run on those ideas but on more mainstream concerns: healthcare, affordability, and anti-war sentiment. Some have questioned the U.S.’s ongoing support of today’s Israel. I am not concerned about the Fox watchers. No matter what, they will vote only for candidates who support Trump. The concern should be what appeals to independents, what will inspire non-conservatives to vote, and who will set the conversations among those non-conservatives. For example, while the numbers vary on how the question is phrased, Medicare for All (advocated by the DSA) is supported by most Americans. And, of course, the majority of Americans are unhappy with gas and grocery prices and tax cuts that have benefited the rich. Republicans will turn off voters if they concentrate on criticizing the DSA members who, e.g., advocate getting rid of the Senate. That isn’t going to happen, and people are far more concerned about bread and butter issues. Republicans would do well to realize that. Democrats, however, have not been adept at setting the terms of the political debate. If they do, the Democratic Socialists will not be detrimental. On another hopeful note: While things remain somewhat fluid, so far the polls indicate that the Democratic Socialists are leading by small margins in swing states like Michigan and Maine. And I have seen nothing that indicates that Democratic Socialists are hurting non-DSA candidates in close races elsewhere, like Texas.

*******

“If the rich could hire other people to die for them, the poor could make a wonderful living.” Yiddish proverb.

*******

A mantra says that elections are about the economy, but they have never been just about the economy. Partisan elections almost always tap into some sort of fear–from a missile gap to civil rights to crime in the streets, and more recently, to those extremely dangerous transgender people. Today there is a new fear that was not anticipated even a year ago—data centers. Unlike many other concerns, this one does not seem to have partisan roots. Instead, it appears to be a grassroots movement. I have no idea how the data center issue will play out in the coming elections, but history shows that fear affects votes. And an increasing number of people fear data centers.

*******

Query: How many citizens should find it harder to vote or even be blocked from voting so that one noncitizen is prevented from casting a ballot?

*******

I also have a non-election-related question: How does a security guard at a nudist colony pin on the badge?

Posted on by rjonakait

They Used to be Called Liberals

With the success of a few Democratic Socialists in recent elections, it is not surprising that conservatives have tried to tar Democrats with a “socialist” and “communist” brush. I don’t know what the terms mean to the conservatives who breathe them out seemingly on every third or fourth exhalation. I can tell that it is an epithet, but it only seems to mean any government spending or program that the speaker doesn’t like. Merely labeling those disfavored things as “socialism,” however, does not aid my understanding. Explain to me why you oppose the spending or program in language that I share with you so that I can understand your opposition. Only then can you persuade me. But the words “socialism” and “communism” provoke a negative reaction in a certain cohort of people and stops the conversation. Divisiveness increases.

More surprising, however, is that non-conservatives are also strongly opposing the Democratic Socialists of America. At first glance this may seem akin to the RINO movement–Republican In Name Only–starting in the 1990s. (Of course, there were similar attempts to purge even earlier, but without the RINO name. Remember Rockefeller Republicans?) The RINO epithet was in service of ideological purity. Only people with certain ideas and positions could be called Republican.

The RINO movement made me think back to the beginning of my legal career when I worked with various people who regarded themselves as socialists. These people had long, arcane arguments among themselves, although I believe they would have said that they had political discussions. When they started arguing about which socialist organization most resolutely carried forward or subverted Trotskyite principles, I did not laugh; I tuned out. Perhaps they had cell meetings where the true meaning of Bakunin’s collectivist anarchism was so furiously debated that violence was imminent, but if so, I did not know or care.

I had little interest in their disputes because I did not even know what they meant by socialism. I gathered it somehow differed from communism, but I thought that both involved the state or the government or the workers owning or controlling the means of production. Their discussions over arcane positions just seemed silly since it seemed clear that no socialist was going to be elected to office.

I did, however, remember one Frank Zeidler, a declared socialist, who had been mayor of Milwaukee throughout the 1950s. While my impression was that he had been regarded as a good mayor, I did not know how, as a socialist, his positions differed from others who might have thought of themselves as progressive or liberal. I did not know what in America defined a socialist. (Zeidler, I believe, was aided because Milwaukee’s mayoralty election was nonpartisan, and he did not have to run under a socialist party label.)

I also knew that in the early and mid-twentieth century people proclaiming themselves to be socialists had been elected to various offices, but I had assumed that no socialist would ever be elected again. Thus, I was surprised when I first learned that Bernie Sanders, one-time mayor of Burlington, Vermont, and then U.S. Senator from Vermont, was a Democratic Socialist and that others now adopt that banner.

If Democratic Socialism is a new movement, I don’t know what it means. It does not seem to be about controlling the means of production. Moreover, the Republicans under Trump who seek government ownership in corporations come closer to traditional notions of socialism than the Democratic Socialists…I think. So…what’s Democratic Socialism?

I asked two friends what Democratic Socialism was. Both quickly replied, “It’s what used to be called liberalism.” Indeed, in running for the Democratic nomination for President, Sanders seemed to indicate that his ideas could fit within that party. Why would AOC consider a presidential run as a Democrat if she did not feel that she could fit within the party?

I have looked up definitions of Democratic Socialism, and I have found different answers, not all of them consistent. Some sources indicate that Democratic Socialists wish to have socialism achieved through democratic means, but that begs the question of defining socialism in the first place. Moreover, the definers say that not even these purported socialists can agree what “socialism” is. I have not heard any of the DS politicians say that they are seeking state control of all businesses or institutions. What I have heard DS politicians aver is a need for more affordable healthcare, housing, childcare, food, and transportation; increases in the minimum wage; reversal or lessening of widening income inequality; and higher taxes on corporations and the super-rich. All of these concerns fit snugly into traditional liberalism, but now they are increasingly labeled “left wing” and “radical.” This indicates just how far to the right our country has lurched.

There is one emerging issue coming from some DS politicians, however, that does not come out of those liberal traditions (nor socialist ones either): the mistrust of Israeli actions and policies and the unquestioning support the United States has given to Israel. These concerns, too, are anathema to Trump conservatives, but they are outside the realm of “socialist” discourse. Nevertheless, because at least two of the prominent Democratic Socialists are Muslim, any hint of opposition to Israel allows anti-DS rhetoric to do double-duty as anti-Muslim rhetoric. So if you decide to be fearful of the one, you can be fearful of the other as well.

While the conservative RINO movement was about the purity of the Republican party, the non-conservative movement concerning Democratic Socialism is not about a similar purity concern for Democrats. Instead, it is about the upcoming election. Traditional Democrats fear that Democratic Socialists will turn off voters by their very name. Their concern is more about beating MAGA conservatives than advancing Democratic ideals. Of course, if there is ever to be a chance of restoring America’s greatness, MAGA must be defeated. However, a great country needs more. The Democratic Socialists’ concerns are the correct ones, but I don’t know whether their solutions make sense or are even feasible. What I do know is that Democratic Socialists should not be shunned; their humanitarian ideas should be explored.