Monday, March 04, 2019
Americans Are Still Afraid Of The Word "Socialism"
I have been comfortable calling myself a socialist for several decades now. Not in the Karl Marx type of socialism, but in the "social democrat" type system exemplified by the Nordic countries in Europe -- countries that regulate their capitalism to protect workers and consumers while helping their most unfortunate citizens with a social welfare system.
And I believe that is true of most "progressives" in the Democratic Party -- and even of Independent Bernie Sanders (who calls himself a socialist). These people don't want to see all private property or private businesses eliminated. They just want a system that is fair to all citizens -- providing opportunity, equality, and meeting the basic needs.
But the Republicans would like to brand all Democrats as socialists. They know that most Americans don't understand what socialism really is, and want to take advantage of the misconceptions many Americans have about it (the idea that it equates to communism or dictatorship). It's not true, but it might work.
Note the chart above. It reflects the results of the latest NBC News / Wall Street Journal Poll -- done between February 24th and 27th of a national sample of 900 adults, with a margin of error of 3.27 points.
Only 25% said they would be comfortable voting for a candidate they viewed as a socialist, while a whopping 72% said they would not be comfortable voting for that candidate. That's the lowest percentage of any of the qualities listed in the chart.
Some progressives think they can educate the public about socialism, and change their opinion. I think that is wishful thinking. Anti-socialism propaganda has been strong for many decades in the United States, and it's going to take more than one election season to change those views. It would be a mistake for any Democratic candidate to embrace the term, or to let Republicans brand them with it.
The Five Biggest Myths About Socialism
Donald Trump (and his fellow Republicans) have revealed their campaign theme for 2020. It is to try and label all Democrats as socialists. It may work, because most Americans don't really understand what socialism is, and like to equate it with communism or dictatorship. It is neither. Modern socialist thought in America would more reasonably be thought of as a regulated capitalism that tries to take care of all citizens (instead of just a lucky few).
Sheri Berman, professor of political science at Barnard College, tries to clear up some of the misconceptions about socialism by telling us about the 5 most common myths on socialism. She lists these as:
MYTH NO. 1
Socialism is a single coherent ideology.
Socialism has multiple meanings and interpretations, which have to be disentangled before a discussion about its merits can begin. One distinction centers on whether socialism is a system that must supplant capitalism or one that can harness the market’s immense productive capacity for progressive ends. Karl Marx, who predicted that historical forces would inevitably lead to capitalism’s demise and to government control of industry, was the most famous proponent of the first type of socialism. An impatient Vladimir Lenin argued instead that rather than waiting for history to run its course, a revolutionary vanguard should destroy capitalism.
Other socialists, however, did not accept the violent, undemocratic nature of that course, although they agreed that capitalism was unjust and unstable. The left’s role, in the view of these “democratic socialists” — the Czech-Austrian theorist Karl Kautsky, for instance — was to remind citizens of capitalism’s defects and rally popular support for an alternative economic system that would end private ownership and assert popular control over the means of production.
Although Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez embrace the term “democratic socialist,” the policies they advocate place them much closer to yet another socialist tradition: social democracy. Social democrats say it is possible and desirable to reform capitalism. This tradition dominated the post-World War II European left and influenced the American Democratic Party, most notably during the Progressive era and the New Deal, inspiring Social Security, unemployment insurance and the eight-hour workday.
MYTH NO. 2
Socialism and democracy are incompatible.
In a speech last month on the crisis in Venezuela, Trump argued that socialism “must always give rise to tyranny.” Socialism is a “pseudo-science . . . enforced by political tyranny,” wrote the Heritage Foundation’s Lee Edwards in December.
Communists reject democracy, of course, but other socialists have strongly supported it. In many parts of the world, including Europe, they were the most consistent advocates of democratization. Eduard Bernstein, for example, one of the fathers of social democracy, described democracy as “both a means and an end. It is a weapon in the struggle for socialism and it is the form in which socialism will be realized.” Conservatives, on the other hand, thought of democracy as “despotism of the multitude,” in Edmund Burke’s phrase, and liberals like Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill were resistant to expanding the franchise as well, because giving workers too much power would threaten the economic elites necessary for social stability. Only organizing and pressure from parties of the left broke liberal and conservative resistance to democracy in Europe.
After the Russian Revolution, a commitment to democracy became a key distinction dividing socialists from communists. The Bolsheviks split off from the Socialist International in 1919 because socialists would not to commit to overthrowing capitalism by “all available means, including armed force.” And after World War II, socialist and social democratic parties became mainstays of democratic systems in Europe.
MYTH NO. 3
All socialists want to abolish markets and private property.
Cass Sunstein, a liberal law professor, writes that once voters realize socialism means government ownership of “the nation’s airlines, hospitals, restaurants and department stores,” they will sour on it. Socialism leads to the “seizure of private property, and the dictating of individual behavior,” asserts Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA.
But on this question, too, the traditions vary. Communists, when in power, have done away with markets and private property. Democratic socialists say that in principle they hope capitalism will disappear over the long run, but in the meantime they advocate piecemeal changes in the ownership and control of economic resources — bank nationalization, for instance. (Democratic socialists have never fully held power anywhere, so their programs remain largely theoretical.) And social democrats have focused on redistributing the fruits of markets and private enterprise rather than abolishing them. Most of the policies advocated by politicians like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — including universal health care, free college education, and higher wealth and income taxes — are clearly achievable within a capitalist system.
MYTH NO. 4
When socialism is tried, it collapses.
“Socialism . . . will always fail,” wrote Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan at Flint and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in March 2016. The Hoover Institution’s Paul R. Gregory offered a primer on “Why Socialism Fails”in January 2018.
Communism certainly failed, but social democracy has arguably been the single most successful modern ideology or political movement. Stable European democracies arose after World War II because a social consensus married relatively free markets and private ownership of the means of production with expanded welfare states, progressive taxation and other forms of government intervention in the economy and society. Without the impressive economic results generated by the market, the huge improvements in living standards in the West after the war would not have been possible; the 30 years after 1945 were Europe’s fastest period of economic growth ever. But without the welfare state, the benefits of growth would not have been distributed so widely: Inequality declineddramatically during the postwar decades.
Moreover, the parts of the world considered to be the most “social democratic,” like the Scandinavian countries, are successful by almost any measure: Growth is strong, unemployment is low, their economies are consistently ranked as highly competitive, and the quality of life is extremely high.
MYTH NO. 5
Socialism offers a ready-made solution to numerous current problems.
Socialism’s advocates today promote it as a near-panacea. It’s a possible “answer to the climate catastrophe,” writes a commentator in the Guardian. It “would remedy the systemic deprivation of people of color,” says Connie M. Razza, director of policy and research at the think tank Demos. It would go far beyond political reform to reshape the “basic structures that disempower people and keep them in wage slavery,” says Julia Salazar, a New York state senator and democratic socialist.
But many of today’s democratic socialists lack clear plans for what they want to put in capitalism’s place and how this new economic order would generate the growth, efficiency and innovation necessary to achieve redistribution and raise living standards. Nor is it clear that democratic socialists have realistic plans for dealing with other vexing social controversies, such as anxieties over immigration. Some argue that many current problems can be solved by new versions of policies that worked during the mid- to late 20th century, like a Green New Deal; more government spending on health care, education and infrastructure; and higher taxes.
Republicans insist that these initiatives would destroy growth and turn the United States into a tyrannical economic basket case like Venezuela. True, conservatives made similar claims in the past about major government initiatives like Social Security and Medicare. But it is surely legitimate to press advocates of increased government spending on how they would pay for these programs. The economist Paul Krugman, for example, who is sympathetic to many social democratic policies, has criticized those on the left who argue that these programs can be subsidized by simply printing or borrowing money.
What distinguished the postwar era was the combination of rising growth and equality. If socialists want to convince Americans, Europeans and others that they have the best solutions to contemporary problems, they need to show that their policies can generate substantial wealth and resources as well as, simultaneously, a more equitable distribution.
Sunday, March 03, 2019
SCOTUS - Religious Freedom Or Christian Superiority?
The Constitution of the United States, in its First Amendment, guarantees freedom of religion. It has been taken to mean that the government (which our Founding Fathers said was secular) should not favor one religion over any other religion, or demand a citizen adhere to any religion.
But that has not been the case in the past. It is fairly commonplace in this country for religious displays (Ten Commandments, Christmas displays, etc.) to be placed on government property with the blessings of that government -- in spite of the fact that such displays clearly favors one religion (christianity) over others, giving at least the appearance that christianity is the government-favored religion.
A case was argued before the Supreme Court last week that involved this very phenomenon -- the placing of christian symbols on government property. The case involves a 40-foot cross placed on government property by the American Legion that purports to honor World War I soldiers (see picture above). It is clearly a christian symbol, even though not all those soldiers were christian.
Does that cross violate the United States Constitution? I believe it does. We'll find out this summer what the Supreme Court thinks. Sadly, I expect they will allow the cross to remain on government property -- making a hollow joke of the First Amendment's religious freedom clause.
Here is part of what the editorial board of The New York Times had to say:
This week’s hearing, in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, involved a 40-foot cross in Bladensburg, Md., that was erected 93 years ago to honor fallen World War I soldiers. The question before the court: Is Maryland in violation of the First Amendment because the memorial is on public property and maintained with public funds?
Over the years, the justices have tried to come up with rules to assess all kinds of religious emblems and practices carrying the government’s imprimatur — sectarian prayers in legislative sessions, war memorials, Ten Commandments and Christmas displays, and mottos on seals or currency.
Lower court judges are confused about how to apply the Supreme Court’s dictates in this area of the law, so more clarity from the high court — if not a definitive, bright-line rule — is in order.
Alas, such clarity doesn’t seem to be on the horizon. After Wednesday’s hearing, the court seems poised to allow the cross — which otherwise bears no religious inscriptions — to stay. But the justices don’t appear to be any closer to consensus on this issue than they’ve ever been.
“I mean, it is the foremost symbol of Christianity, isn’t it?” Justice Elena Kagan asked at Wednesday’s session. “It invokes the central theological claim of Christianity, that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died on the cross for humanity’s sins and that he rose from the dead. This is why Christians use crosses as a way to memorialize the dead.”
Justice Stephen Breyer, who in the past has wrestled with the Constitution’s religion clauses, pondered whether “history counts” when assessing a monument’s legality. Maybe older displays, erected when the nation wasn’t nearly as religiously diverse, should be allowed, he suggested. “We’re a different country,” Justice Breyer said. “We are a different country now, and there are 50 more different religions.”
The Trump administration, which isn’t a party in the case, has nonetheless weighed in, participating in oral arguments in support of the Maryland monument and other memorial crosses on federal property that could be similarly challenged. In the administration’s view, the Maryland cross is secular in context and not an endorsement of any particular faith, and only displays that “coerce” religious belief or adherence ought to be considered unconstitutional. Taking offense at a passive display is not enough.
Arlington National Cemetery provides a good example of the kind of nondiscrimination the government should be aiming for: Federal rules allow for a wide array of religious and nonreligious symbols on headstones. “That’s the way this sort of thing is being handled today in a pluralistic society in which ordinary people … are not at each other’s throats about religious divisions,” Justice Samuel Alito said of Arlington on Wednesday.
That’s fair enough. But with its recent rulings, the Supreme Court has only muddied the separation between church and state by taking seriously religious objections to contraception, civil rights laws and the allocation of public funds. It is hard to fathom the justices being nearly as accommodating with a publicly funded monument to atheism or a Wiccan pentagram. And last month, the court couldn’t even agree that a Muslim death-row prisoner from Alabama deserved the same rightsas Christians in his final moments.
However the justices resolve this the dispute, they would be wise to not sow more confusion in this area of the law and feed the perception that only certain religions and practices get a fair shake in public life.
Biden Leads Other Democrats (& He's Not Yet In The Race)
From Morningconsult.com:
Our Democratic Primary results are reported using15,642 interviews with registered voters who indicate they may vote in the Democratic primary or caucus. For those who say don’t know or no opinion, they are asked to pick a candidate they arelearning towards, which are factored into the results. The margin of error for potential Democratic primary voters is +/- 1%.
These two charts are from the Morning Consult Poll. Even though he has yet to officially enter the presidential race, Joe Biden leads all other candidates -- in the nation as a whole, and in the early primary states.
Will The U.S. Invade Venezuela? It Wouldn't Be The First Time It Has Overthrown A Government In Latin America!
Donald Trump has refused to take a military intervention of Venezuela off the table. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he invaded that country. Things are not going well for him in the United States, and he might just think a war is just what he needs to solve his domestic problem.
He has tried to frame Venezuela's current problems as supporting democracy. But the truth is that he is supporting an attempted coup that tried to unseat an elected leader (and undoubtably, that attested coup was probably arranged, or. at least supported by our own CIA).
It wouldn't be the first time the United States has overthrown a Latin American government. Since 1898, the U.S. has done it at least 41 times (and that doesn't count the number of times we tried and failed, like the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba). We have a long history of meddling in Latin America.
The myth that most Americans want to believe is that the U.S. did that to spread democracy or defend human rights. That is a lie! Many of the governments we overthrew were democratically-elected, and none of the meddling was to support human rights. Most of the time it was done on behalf of American corporations -- when the leader of a country got the crazy idea that his country's resources belong to the people of that country, and not a foreign (U.S.) corporation.
Below is part of an excellent article by John H. Coatsworth for the Harvard Review of Latin America:
In the slightly less than a hundred years from 1898 to 1994, the U.S. government has intervened successfully to change governments in Latin America a total of at least 41 times. That amounts to once every 28 months for an entire century (see table).
Direct intervention occurred in 17 of the 41 cases. These incidents involved the use of U.S. military forces, intelligence agents or local citizens employed by U.S. government agencies. In another 24 cases, the U.S. government played an indirect role. That is, local actors played the principal roles, but either would not have acted or would not have succeeded without encouragement from the U.S. government.
While direct interventions are easily identified and copiously documented, identifying indirect interventions requires an exercise in historical judgment. The list of 41 includes only cases where, in the author’s judgment, the incumbent government would likely have survived in the absence of U.S. hostility. The list ranges from obvious cases to close calls. An example of an obvious case is the decision, made in the Oval Office in January 1963, to incite the Guatemalan army to overthrow the (dubiously) elected government of Miguel YdÃgoras Fuentes in order to prevent an open competitive election that might have been won by left-leaning former President Juan José Arévalo. A less obvious case is that of the Chilean military coup against the government of President Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973. The Allende government had plenty of domestic opponents eager to see it deposed. It is included in this list because U.S. opposition to a coup (rather than encouragement) would most likely have enabled Allende to continue in office until new elections.
The 41 cases do not include incidents in which the United States sought to depose a Latin American government, but failed in the attempt. The most famous such case was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961. Also absent from the list are numerous cases in which the U.S. government acted decisively to forestall a coup d’etat or otherwise protect an incumbent regime from being overthrown.
Overthrowing governments in Latin America has never been exactly routine for the United States. However, the option to depose a sitting government has appeared on the U.S. president’s desk with remarkable frequency over the past century. It is no doubt still there, though the frequency with which the U.S. president has used this option has fallen rapidly since the end of the Cold War.
Though one may quibble about cases, the big debates—both in the public and among historians and social scientists—have centered on motives and causes. In nearly every case, U.S. officials cited U.S. security interests, either as determinative or as a principal motivation. With hindsight, it is now possible to dismiss most these claims as implausible. In many cases, they were understood as necessary for generating public and congressional support, but not taken seriously by the key decision makers. The United States did not face a significant military threat from Latin America at any time in the 20th century. Even in the October 1962 missile crisis, the Pentagon did not believe that the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba altered the global balance of nuclear terror. It is unlikely that any significant threat would have materialized if the 41 governments deposed by the United States had remained in office until voted out or overturned without U.S. help.
In both the United States and Latin America, economic interests are often seen as the underlying cause of U.S. interventions. This hypothesis has two variants. One cites corruption and the other blames capitalism. The corruption hypothesis contends that U.S. officials order interventions to protect U.S. corporations. The best evidence for this version comes from the decision to depose the elected government of Guatemala in 1954. Except for President Dwight Eisenhower, every significant decision maker in this case had a family, business or professional tie to the United Fruit Company, whose interests were adversely affected by an agrarian reform and other policies of the incumbent government. Nonetheless, in this as in every other case involving U.S. corporate interests, the U.S. government would probably not have resorted to intervention in the absence of other concerns.
The capitalism hypothesis is a bit more sophisticated. It holds that the United States intervened not to save individual companies but to save the private enterprise system, thus benefiting all U.S. (and Latin American) companies with a stake in the region. This is a more plausible argument, based on repeated declarations by U.S. officials who seldom missed an opportunity to praise free enterprise. However, capitalism was not at risk in the overwhelming majority of U.S. interventions, perhaps even in none of them. So this ideological preference, while real, does not help explain why the United States intervened. U.S. officials have also expressed a preference for democratic regimes, but ordered interventions to overthrow elected governments more often than to restore democracy in Latin America. Thus, this preference also fails to carry much explanatory power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)