Socialism And The Politics Of Fear
Frank Llewellyn is the national director of Democratic Socialists of America.
"Socialism" is now an active part of the Republican lexicon, among the litany of routine charges to be trotted out whenever they cannot come up with a substantive critique of policy initiatives they oppose. Beginning with a steady drumbeat from the far-right blogosphere during last year's Democratic primary campaign, Republicans have attacked health care reform and modest progressive tax reform proposals as somehow "un-American," "European," and, God-forbid, "socialist!"
When the Republicans lost the election and the Obama administration filled its Treasury positions with former Goldman Sachs executives, we socialists thought that was the end of these baseless charges. But when the Republicans found themselves with nothing to say about how to shore-up an economy in free-fall, they deemed the stimulus bill socialist - even though the architect of such policies, John Maynard Keynes, advocated a capitalist economic system.
Republicans and their media allies never really define what they mean by socialism. To some, it is an expansion in government spending (although many capitalist nations funnel more of their GDP through the public sector than the U.S. does). This past February, Fox TV host Glen Beck informed me on the air that Canada must be a socialist country because it had a universal health care system. That would be news to Canada's socialist New Democratic Party, which has occasionally held power at the provincial level but has never won a federal election.
Whatever their definition of socialism is, the term is gaining currency among some Republicans as a form of blanket condemnation of the President and Democratic reform proposals. Just yesterday, RNC Chair Michael Steele declared definitively that Obama's health plan represented socialism, even though the Obama proposals most closely resemble the universal health insurance scheme of Germany - last we knew, an avowedly capitalist nation.
All this Republican chatter is letting me make a living telling people that Obama and his administration are not socialist - and as National Director of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the United States' largest socialist organization, I ought to know. Just, like the New Deal-era Roosevelt haters, these Republicans erroneously term a president who is trying to save capitalism from itself a socialist.
Contemporary democratic socialists want to mitigate the many adverse impacts that unregulated capitalist markets have on the lives of ordinary people by supporting intelligent democratic regulation of the economy (particularly the financial sector) and by using progressive taxation to finance high-quality public goods that can satisfy all citizens' basic needs for health care, education, unemployment insurance, and job training. We do not wish to destroy markets for consumer goods or to confiscate personal property. Rather, we want to establish efficient government regulation of financial markets so that ordinary citizens can secure stable financing for the purchase of such important personal property as an affordable home.
In other developed democracies, national health care systems are so popular that once they have been established it is politically impossible to eliminate them. In a recent Gallup poll, while only fifty-seven percent of United States residents said they were satisfied with their health care, over seventy-five percent of Canadians and Western Europeans said they would not trade their health care system for the current U. S. model. That is the real reason that Republicans are trying to sow doubt and prevent passage of a national health care bill: they want to protect the for-profit health care and pharmaceutical industries.
American socialists (and many more non-socialists, including 86 members of Congress) support HR 676, John Conyers' Medicare for All single-payer national health plan, which would replace the private insurance industry with a government agency but would preserve personal choice of physician and hospital care.
We socialists are deeply suspicious of the Democratic Party leadership proposals for health care. We worry that these proposals lack a sufficiently robust public insurance option to provide an effective check on the private insurers. Any comparative analysis of health care systems indicates that the greater the role of private, for-profit health insurance companies in the delivery of health care, the higher the cost. This is why the United States has the most expensive healthcare system in the world but trails well behind on crucial indicators of public health, such as infant mortality, longevity, and death of women in childbirth.
The insurance companies don't like the Democratic leadership plan because in theory they might have to face effective competition from a public insurance option. Democratic socialists don't trust the insurance companies enough to keep them in the health insurance market. But President Obama does, which makes it much more likely that the pay-or-play predominantly private insurance plan we distrust is likely to pass. So exactly how does that put the President in a "cabal," to use Michael Steele's word, to advance socialist goals?
This socialist-baiting is more than just name-calling. We are in the middle of a prolonged economic crisis brought on by unrestrained and unregulated capitalism. Since it arose from a crisis in the banking and housing sectors, this economic crisis in particular cannot be solved by normal market mechanisms. There is not sufficient private purchasing power to rejuvenate demand, and capital markets remain very tight. Financial institutions are unwilling to renegotiate under-water mortgages and are even reducing credit lines to borrowers with strong credit ratings.
Absent government efforts to strengthen the rights of working people and organized labor, we face the likelihood of another jobless recovery and declining wages. The devastating decline in value of pensions, retirement accounts and housing means that many near retirement age and even many not so near to retirement will not be able to retire on schedule - and certainly not with dignity and security.
If the United States fails to democratically restructure its economy, we face a future of increased inequality and poverty. But the constant drumbeat of right-wing "socialist-baiting" makes it less likely that this administration will consider the public initiatives - such as investments in alternative energy, education, and health care - that could engender productive jobs at good wages.
Reactionary forces have always utilized anti-socialism to oppose democratic reforms that constrain corporate power. Corporate America tried to red-bait Social Security, the GI Bill, and Medicare. But ordinary Americans rejected the politics of fear, and reforms passed that significantly improved the lives of average Americans. It will take Americans once again rejecting mindless anti-socialism to create sufficient support for the extensive reforms needed to address this deep and systemic economic crisis.
By Frank Llewellyn
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. "Socialism" is now an active part of the Republican lexicon, among the litany of routine charges to be trotted out whenever they cannot come up with a substantive critique of policy initiatives they oppose. Beginning with a steady drumbeat from the far-right blogosphere during last year's Democratic primary campaign, Republicans have attacked health care reform and modest progressive tax reform proposals as somehow "un-American," "European," and, God-forbid, "socialist!"
When the Republicans lost the election and the Obama administration filled its Treasury positions with former Goldman Sachs executives, we socialists thought that was the end of these baseless charges. But when the Republicans found themselves with nothing to say about how to shore-up an economy in free-fall, they deemed the stimulus bill socialist - even though the architect of such policies, John Maynard Keynes, advocated a capitalist economic system.
Republicans and their media allies never really define what they mean by socialism. To some, it is an expansion in government spending (although many capitalist nations funnel more of their GDP through the public sector than the U.S. does). This past February, Fox TV host Glen Beck informed me on the air that Canada must be a socialist country because it had a universal health care system. That would be news to Canada's socialist New Democratic Party, which has occasionally held power at the provincial level but has never won a federal election.
Whatever their definition of socialism is, the term is gaining currency among some Republicans as a form of blanket condemnation of the President and Democratic reform proposals. Just yesterday, RNC Chair Michael Steele declared definitively that Obama's health plan represented socialism, even though the Obama proposals most closely resemble the universal health insurance scheme of Germany - last we knew, an avowedly capitalist nation.
All this Republican chatter is letting me make a living telling people that Obama and his administration are not socialist - and as National Director of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the United States' largest socialist organization, I ought to know. Just, like the New Deal-era Roosevelt haters, these Republicans erroneously term a president who is trying to save capitalism from itself a socialist.
Contemporary democratic socialists want to mitigate the many adverse impacts that unregulated capitalist markets have on the lives of ordinary people by supporting intelligent democratic regulation of the economy (particularly the financial sector) and by using progressive taxation to finance high-quality public goods that can satisfy all citizens' basic needs for health care, education, unemployment insurance, and job training. We do not wish to destroy markets for consumer goods or to confiscate personal property. Rather, we want to establish efficient government regulation of financial markets so that ordinary citizens can secure stable financing for the purchase of such important personal property as an affordable home.
In other developed democracies, national health care systems are so popular that once they have been established it is politically impossible to eliminate them. In a recent Gallup poll, while only fifty-seven percent of United States residents said they were satisfied with their health care, over seventy-five percent of Canadians and Western Europeans said they would not trade their health care system for the current U. S. model. That is the real reason that Republicans are trying to sow doubt and prevent passage of a national health care bill: they want to protect the for-profit health care and pharmaceutical industries.
American socialists (and many more non-socialists, including 86 members of Congress) support HR 676, John Conyers' Medicare for All single-payer national health plan, which would replace the private insurance industry with a government agency but would preserve personal choice of physician and hospital care.
We socialists are deeply suspicious of the Democratic Party leadership proposals for health care. We worry that these proposals lack a sufficiently robust public insurance option to provide an effective check on the private insurers. Any comparative analysis of health care systems indicates that the greater the role of private, for-profit health insurance companies in the delivery of health care, the higher the cost. This is why the United States has the most expensive healthcare system in the world but trails well behind on crucial indicators of public health, such as infant mortality, longevity, and death of women in childbirth.
The insurance companies don't like the Democratic leadership plan because in theory they might have to face effective competition from a public insurance option. Democratic socialists don't trust the insurance companies enough to keep them in the health insurance market. But President Obama does, which makes it much more likely that the pay-or-play predominantly private insurance plan we distrust is likely to pass. So exactly how does that put the President in a "cabal," to use Michael Steele's word, to advance socialist goals?
This socialist-baiting is more than just name-calling. We are in the middle of a prolonged economic crisis brought on by unrestrained and unregulated capitalism. Since it arose from a crisis in the banking and housing sectors, this economic crisis in particular cannot be solved by normal market mechanisms. There is not sufficient private purchasing power to rejuvenate demand, and capital markets remain very tight. Financial institutions are unwilling to renegotiate under-water mortgages and are even reducing credit lines to borrowers with strong credit ratings.
Absent government efforts to strengthen the rights of working people and organized labor, we face the likelihood of another jobless recovery and declining wages. The devastating decline in value of pensions, retirement accounts and housing means that many near retirement age and even many not so near to retirement will not be able to retire on schedule - and certainly not with dignity and security.
If the United States fails to democratically restructure its economy, we face a future of increased inequality and poverty. But the constant drumbeat of right-wing "socialist-baiting" makes it less likely that this administration will consider the public initiatives - such as investments in alternative energy, education, and health care - that could engender productive jobs at good wages.
Reactionary forces have always utilized anti-socialism to oppose democratic reforms that constrain corporate power. Corporate America tried to red-bait Social Security, the GI Bill, and Medicare. But ordinary Americans rejected the politics of fear, and reforms passed that significantly improved the lives of average Americans. It will take Americans once again rejecting mindless anti-socialism to create sufficient support for the extensive reforms needed to address this deep and systemic economic crisis.
By Frank Llewellyn
Newsflash to the pro-capitalists: when the government intervenes on behalf of the capitalist class in order to prevent their institutions (i.e. banks, auto companies) from going under, that ain't socialism: that's STATE CAPITALISM. And the fact that the government HAS to bail out these firms in order to prevent the whole economy from going under is proof positive that your beloved "free" market DOES. NOT. WORK.
Other little fact: real capitalists don't believe in free markets either. They WANT government intervention: they just want it FOR THEM, not for the working class. And usually, they get what they want; after all, the state is their state. (I'm sure some of you think a stateless capitalism is possible. Question: if there's no state, who's gonna enforce the contracts?)
Sorry, folks, but interdependence is a fact of life and collectivization is inevitable. Real socialists want this collectivization to be democratic and participatory and cooperative, with workplaces managed by their workers and the inevitable planning of the economy to be from the bottom up. The only alternative is an authoritarian "planned economy" run by private business. Free market capitalism is dead. Deal with it.
Oh, and no real socialist anywhere in the world believes Obama to be one of us. It's a laughable idea.
Thanks for the laugh...there was no need to read another word after this little bit of idiocy...ROTFLMAO...you really are delusional.
Jhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
Here Frank, let me define socialism for you:
1. Government takover of private industry, corporations, and the auto industry.
GM="Government Motors"
2. Jack-booted takeover of banks, and threatening those who won't comply:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DanKennedy/2009/07/10/obamas_climate_of_fear
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078909572557575.html
Obama?s regime is forcing trillions of taxpayer?s dollars at corporate failures to give a false sense of security. It?s not working. You cannot prop up hundreds of collapsing businesses without the economy taking a serious hit. It?s not just the failures the government interferes with, it?s the successful businesses as well. The FDIC recently pressured a community bank in Boston?East Bridgewater Savings?for not lending enough to high risk borrowers, and making a profit, to boot. East Bridgewater Savings ended 2008 with $135 million in assets and deposits of $84 million; on average, one of the more successful banks in the U.S.
3. Government takeover of the country's health care system.
If the government takes over health care in this country, there will be a Darwinization of medicine. Government claims agents will be appointed to decide whether or not your life is worth saving or if it?s ?necessary? to provide treatment. The government will decide which doctor you will have, what kind of treatment will be allocated, and when. Like Canada. Like Britain. Like Germany. You will have no choice.
If you think the cost of medical treatment is high enough now, just wait if Obama gets his way.
Who do think will foot the bill for this train wreck? If you said ?the already overburdened taxpayers?, congratulations.
The socialized medicine in Europe and Canada is so dicked up that seriously ill people will fly or drive here to get treatment. If anyone is stupid enough to believe that we should model our system after theirs, by all means travel to Canada, and see for yourself.
And take a number.
This jack-booted method of taking control of the nation?s economic infrastructure is pure socialism, and will lead to a catastophic depression.
How?s that ?change? working for you?