IMO, Democrats should emphasize that we already have a hybrid system, and have for many decades – many of our institutions are socialized (i.e. run by the government – whether local, state, or federal), and many non-socialized institutions and sectors are regulated by government. We should emphasize that some things (defense, fire-fighting, law enforcement, etc.) have been proven to be more effective and efficient when socialized, and other things are clearly more effective and efficient when delivered by the free market (entertainment and leisure, for example, as well as many tech industries), with many involving both government and the free market. We should reiterate that socialism shouldn’t be feared, since it’s been part of the American system since its founding.
IMO this should be the basis when beginning discussions of things like universal health care. If we’re capitulating to the framework of black and white “socialist vs capitalist” debates, then we’re going to lose those debates.
Too much of the electorate sees things in only black and white and cannot distinguish any shade of gray. To them, socialism=communism=evil and whether it’s 100% socialism or 1% socialism is immaterial. Those who equate socialism with Satan worship are unreachable by logic, so why bother trying to split hairs with such folk?
And too many on the other side equate social programs with being a socialist. Bernie Sanders is NOT a socialist, nor are most of the others who claim to or are accused of being socialists in the Democratic party. Mis-use of the term has done the Democrats no real favors either. Or, to put it another way, who in the Democratic party is advocating for nationalization of industry, central planning of the economy and collectivization of private property? Because by the classic definition, that is what ACTUAL socialist economics and policy say. On this board, there are endless fights about this, but that’s because people want socialism to mean what THEY want, not what it’s actual definition is.
Myself, I think the Democrats SHOULD distance themselves from the term…it’s a failed system that just about every working economy has dumped and they shouldn’t associate themselves with it. Instead, they should focus on the PROGRAMS they want and rebrand them as American programs. A single payer system called something like the American Healthcare System, maybe with a flag and an eagle holding a baby and a slice of apple pie.
Whatever they do, they need to be united. When you have some Democratic candidates embracing the term “socialism” and others attacking fellow Democrats for “socialism” (coughHickenloopercough), that is the worst case scenario.
I don’t think introducing a new term (“hybrid”) or trying to placate fears of the word “socialism” will be effective strategies. It’s too late – the GOP has already successfully linked socialism with bad outcomes to the point where they now call any Dem initiative the first step toward the US becoming Venezuela.
Right. And while we have no hope of reaching that 35% or so, let’s not risk losing those undecideds who still might not be inclined to think too deeply about these things. Hmmm … Trump’s an idiot but socialism is scary …
I think pointing out the many socialized institutions in our society is an effective antidote to that. At least in my experience having such discussions in the real world – pointing this out to socialism-haters bugs their eyes out but (eventually) a few of them have told me that they never thought about it like that.
I’ve actually had some small success arguing that just because a program has some relation to socialism doesn’t mean that the system is socialist, and the the US and most of the western world has, in fact, used such programs to successfully soften capitalism for a long, long time. Also, that many of the programs that Americans don’t give a second thought to ARE, in fact, socialistic type systems, and people want and need them.
This is a case, again IMHO, where you guys should throw out the baby and keep some of the bathwater wrt socialist type programs. Socialism, as a system frankly sucks. Kind of why most modern and well founded economies today don’t use it, and most political systems don’t (mainly, with a few exceptions) use the political aspects for the most part. Most modern and successful nations use a hybrid of capitalist economy and socialistic programs to soften that system, or to provide some services or needs. Democrats who want to actually say they are socialist bring in all the baggage of that, and to no real point as I’d guess the majority don’t actually want or advocate for a socialist economy or political system…they merely mean they want this or that program that is associated with socialism. So, why take the hit? Toss that baby out!
I’m fine with “tossing out” the personal label of socialist, but I’d advocate pairing that with explaining all the ways we already utilize socialism in our system – people generally think highly of the military and firefighters… when they realize that defense and firefighting are some of the most socialized parts of our society, then “socialism” might seem a lot less scary.
There are people who will view any expansion of governmental involvement as “socialist” and they’re not going to be won over by rebranding long-existing government functions as socialist. Referring to the Pentagon and police and fire departments as examples of socialism will get a horselaugh and nothing more.
I’d agree with XT - sell a program’s benefits convincingly and it won’t matter so much what scare terms opponents use to characterize it.
I wouldn’t bother trying to make that case, but you do you…if you want to try and explain to folks that this or that is like socialism, or has it’s roots in socialism, well, there is nothing wrong with that. I think you’ll mainly be talking to a lot of folks looking at you blankly or not seeing the point, and I doubt any of it will make socialism seem ‘less scary’ as, well, actual socialism is a bit scary and pretty worthless as an actual system. Me, I’d focus on the stuff you actually want to do, and not worry about labels or where it’s roots came from, but that’s just me.
Agreed. While it’s possible (and helpful) to point out the many examples of how collective, government-organized activities work well – and are, in fact, essential to society as we know it – we lose when we label any of it “socialism.” Every time AOC or Bernie talks about “socialism” they risk driving undecided voters into the arms of the GOP.
“Medicare-for-all” might sound reasonable to the same people who dismiss “universal healthcare coverage” as being tainted by socialism.
I wish people weren’t so easily swayed by word association, but you can’t pretend they aren’t.
I’m sure the word “socialism” is ingrained as evil in the minds of plenty of Americans, but these kinds of associations can and do change, and political messaging is part of that change (for an example, see how perceptions about the word “liberal” has changed over time). I’m in favor of making arguments on the merits of policies like universal health care, but I also think political messaging meant to rehabilitate certain words and concepts might also be effective in some circumstances. Just another tool in the toolbelt, IMO. Not the only tool, but not one to toss out either, IMO.
I think the key distinction here is that maybe we should describe them as something other than socialist/socialized. Collective is probably the right one, but I think that may have even more Marxist/communist overtones than socialist does.
The main thing overall will be to point out that collective programs/agencies don’t necessarily have to remove personal choice or agency, and that their level of service won’t necessarily and inevitably decline.
I know that’s a huge concern for many with universal health care- that in a nutshell they’re going to pay more, get less, and not be able to have many choices in what little they do get. So rather than emphasize the collective nature of it, they need to emphasize how it preserves your freedom of choice and level of service, and in some ways potentially enhances your level of service (i.e. catastrophic costs, long-term illnesses, etc…). Making a point of helping the poor/underinsured isn’t going to be a very effective platform when you’re talking to a bunch of people (80% of people have health insurance) who by and large, have adequate health care. They need to talk about how this is better for them and doesn’t take away the parts of the current system they cherish.
The “S” word is the kiss of death for the Dems. They need to run away from the word, and anything that could be related to that word in terms of policy. Openly endorsing socialism is only slightly less toxic than openly endorsing child molesting or puppy torture.
True, the GOP has poisoned the word, just like they poisoned health care, to the point where most people agree with the agenda point by point but oppose the package. So, talk about progress on popular (and third-rail) programs instead - strengthening Social Security and expanding Medicare eligibility - and let the Trumpists try to oppose those. Talk about economic issues in terms of fairness.
Well, you have a point. But the GOP has made sure people think socialism means “failed autocratic societies with Communist origins like Venezuela” instead of “a system where some components are controlled by the state.”
As for France … just how did “France” become a one-word punchline? Probably a subject for another thread.
I don’t fathom why the Left opted for the extremely fraught term “socialism” when “social democracy” expresses the ideology more accurately and without any of the historical burden.
The problem with all of these gyrations, is that they are phony. These programs are socialist, and when you’re trying to claim that they aren’t, you appear to be hiding something. And when you’re obviously hiding something, people what to know why. These efforts are socialist.
You know, Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist. He’s done it publicly several times. Are you really going to try and walk away from that?
:smack: