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.

Posted on by rjonakait

The Republican Pecking Order

          I have no insight into whether Trump will run for president in 2024, but I am confident that if he does not, the announcement will come as late as possible. Trump wants to be a center of attention and that ends when we know that he is not a candidate. This, of course, presents a problem for other Republicans with dreams of the White House. They will have to gear up campaigns before Trump makes clear whether he is a candidate. They will want Trump’s support if he does not run, and it will be interesting to see how this affects their campaigns. They have to proceed in ways that will not offend the ever-mercurial Donald while he dithers. And, of course, if Trump does run, the others, who may already be entered in primaries, must decide whether they will withdraw.

          From the list now of apparent or potential candidates, Ron DeSantis will have the toughest choice about whether to stay in the race. He could wait until 2028 to run, but it could be a liability if he continues to be governor of Florida for those four years. That is because governors, surprise, surprise, must govern. Of course, DeSantis may continue to be identified with policies of anti-gay and voter-fraud measures, but a governor must do more than this kind of pandering. There will be roads to be maintained, schools to be funded, taxes to be levied and collected. In all likelihood, there will be storms and floods and blackouts. There will be illegal immigrants and corruption. There will be crimes and mass shootings. There will be development decisions and red tide. States can’t print money and have to balance their budgets. That almost always requires deals, negotiations, and compromises….you know, governing.

          A governor has to make decisions, and no matter how wise those decisions, not all will agree with them. A danger for a governor is that over time, those who are made unhappy in one area will coalesce with those made unhappy by choices elsewhere. In the four years after 2024, there is a good chance that the unfavorable ratings of DeSantis will increase and weaken his presidential prospects. Just remember my ex-governor, Andrew Cuomo. Three years ago, he looked as if he might be a leading presidential candidate, even though there was much under-the-radar grumbling in the state about him. When one sort of complaint about him got traction, many areas of Cuomo discontent coalesced, and he is gone. DeSantis, if he is as shrewd as he appears, should know of that possibility. Holding off his presidential ambitions beyond 2024 is a big risk for Ron.

          The many Senate Republican wannabes may not wish to wait four more years after 2024 for their presidential chance either, but they don’t face the potential harm that the Florida governor does from the delay. Senate Republicans don’t believe in governing other than passing tax cuts skewed towards the rich, and that has already been done. The goal now is not to improve anything but to prevent legislation, a relatively easy task. Passing laws always involves compromise and for Republicans that would mean working with Democrats, and working with Democrats appears to be a death knell for any Republican’s presidential hopes. Furthermore, good legislation requires study, knowledge, and mastery of detail, and who wants to bother with that?

          The role of a Republican senator these days is not to take a part in governing; instead, the role is merely self-aggrandizing grandstanding. More of that from 2024 to 2028 is unlikely to harm the prospects of Cotton, Cruz, Hawley, Paul and the others, and it might even benefit them. Thus, if Trump runs, the Senate Republicans are not likely to challenge him but will get out of the race they will have already entered.

          However, if Trump runs, I hope that DeSantis stays in. Good political theater could result. The Senatorial and other presidential pretenders might normally proclaim neutrality between the candidates–let the voters decide. But we know that the Trumpian stance is that if you are not with me, you are against me. Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, Paul and others will support Trump because they will want his support, but they will do it with some trepidation. What if DeSantis wins? They might mouth kudos for Trump, but can they attack DeSantis? No one wants to offend someone who might be the winner. This road is also tricky because while other wannabes may pledge loyalty to the Republican party, they will not want a DeSantis president. The Twenty-Second Amendment limits Trump to only one more term. DeSantis could serve eight years as president. Waiting four more years for their presidential shot is one thing for those in waiting; eight is another.

          I also want DeSantis in primaries against Donald because it will be interesting to see Trump attack DeSantis. Donald regularly pulls out the RINO label against Republicans who don’t sufficiently kowtow to him, but it will be hard to stick that epithet on Ron who might be less of a RINO than Trump himself. Furthermore, attacks on DeSantis could produce dangerous Florida sinkholes. The Republican path to a general election victory in 2024 surely requires a Florida win. Trump has not been a politician of nuance, but that may be required to defeat DeSantis for the nomination and still carry the rising-water-and-disappearing-coastline state in November.

          I look forward to two other political possibilities if DeSantis or someone else provides a strong primary challenge to Trump. Republicans have been making it harder to vote. The goal, of course, is to disproportionately burden Democratic voters. That might happen in the general elections, but the recent Texas primaries also show that the “anti-fraud” measure can affect Republicans, too. A higher percentage of absentee ballots were disqualified in Texas than in previous years after stricter identification requirements were enacted and applied, and many of the ballots tossed aside came from counties that overwhelmingly supported Trump. In the general election, more Democratic votes may be suppressed than Republican ones, as intended, but Republican votes, as Texas shows, will be lost in Republican primaries. If primary elections are close, then it might be crucial whether the lost Republican votes helps one candidate more than another. Will any Republican candidate who loses a close primary where ballots have been disqualified complain about the voting laws?

          But the major reason I want Trump in primaries with a strong candidate is that we now know that Trump cannot lose a general election; it can only be stolen from him. Are you going to be surprised if he reacts similarly to a primary loss? What will be the reaction from all those Republicans who now do not denounce the Stop the Steal movement if Trump claims that a primary is fraudulent? Or if DeSantis or another Republican candidate made such a claim after a close primary loss? Let the elephant dung fly!