The word “socialist” first entered the congressional record in the antebellum era in an attack on abolition efforts. Naturally, it was used incorrectly by a republican statesman. How nonsensical to call abolition socialism! These two concepts are not even related. But I say it was used “naturally by a republican” because it’s a tradition of incorrect usage and false choices that continues to this day, especially in the last decade. It has served the GOP well to set this narrative for the public, but like so many narratives, it drifts from the truth.
Socialism is simply defined as a community or the government taking over the means of production and distribution of goods. Capitalism leaves all that to private owners for profit. Neither one truly defines what the United States embodies, but we’re certainly closer to capitalism in a rather unmoderated form. We know this because of the egregious inequality that’s tearing at our social fabric, a feature of capitalism, not a bug. However, as is a predictable course in unmoderated capitalism, money is power, and power easily corrupts. The United States has drifted away from and toward pure capitalism in many ways over the years, but the incorrect socialist slander pervades.
Despite President Ronald Reagan’s incorrect use of the descriptor socialist to describe the Medicare proposal, the law passed. FDR was continually called a socialist for the New Deal. Barack Obama was called a socialist for passing the Affordable Care Act, even though in every way possible, that was a deeply capitalist law, which handed 30 million new customers to the private insurance industry. And the GOP has just devolved from there. Any proposal that helps people will be deemed socialist in 2020, regardless of its actual characteristics. And the common American will accept this facile description and rally against the “imminent takeover” over the socialist agenda. Keep them afraid, says the GOP, because they know they are dealing with an ignorant and often indifferent public that’s incapable of diving deep into any subject.
We’ve also watched as the government continues to prop up certain industries that may not be so deserving. Coal is a prime example. The recent overpayment to farmers hurt by a senseless trade war with China is another. These are not free market, capitalist actions, but something closer to socialist. Interesting!
In Alaska, as many people know, all citizens (young and old) receive an annual dividend as their share of oil profits. Depending on the year, it can range from $800 to $2000 per person. Yes, that’s a handout directly from private industry of about $8000 a year to a family of four. But don’t call it socialist (it isn’t, I’m aware)! Alaska is a red state, and they don’t believe in handouts. The GOP would deeply offend their proud base if they called the dividend a handout. That term is reserved for when it benefits or is proposed by non-GOP voters. The non-GOP voters and politicians are the ones with a socialist agenda coming for the profits of big oil and such.
I’ve been searching hard and I’ve yet to find this mythical socialist candidate for president or a single socialist proposal by any candidate. To be sure, I’ve seen proposals that are similar to what the Nordic countries have adopted, which aren’t radical on any first world scale. Again, they represent a much more moderated form of capitalism, whose benefits are far reaching and difficult to quantify, but easy to qualify. There’s a reason that capitalist (not Socialist) Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland are the wealthiest and happiest countries in the world. They’ve taken the logical approach to moderating capitalism. The United States has taken the stupid approach.
Following in the footsteps of Bernie Sanders, most progressive candidates want Universal Healthcare of some kind. This is also what the majority of Americans want, as long as you frame it the right way. Sanders, for example, has made some missteps by calling himself a democratic socialist, which does indeed mean socialist. He’s not. He’s a social democrat, which means he wants to moderate capitalism to reduce inequality. He’s also called proposals like Universal Healthcare “free” when he means “free at time of use.” No more premiums. No more copays. No more surprise expenses. No more losing coverage when you change employers. Negotiate lower prices with medical companies. But your taxes will increase marginally. And that’s where the people, predictably, run away, because they are uninformed and they’ve been tricked by the incorrect “socialism is coming for you” headlines.
And so it becomes a branding problem. But it’s difficult to brand something when your competition continually brands your product for you in the most vile, untruthful ways possible. But, after all, it does come naturally to Moscow Mitch and his crew.
