Not Feeling the Bern – A first response to early, some fair, criticisms.

In publishing the last blog, in which I attempted to argue that supporting Bernie Sanders at this point would likely cost us democrats the elections, I encountered considerable push back from supporters of Senator Sanders. Some of it was more worthy of a Red State debate (“Another idiotic statement from a S’Hillary supporter”), but much was well reasoned, fair and articulate. The primary criticism was that my concern that Bernie’s self labelled “socialism” would not engender the phobia I fear. Or, rather, that it would only do so among a few ‘uneducated people’, and that I had better educate myself about “democratic socialism” before I am mistaken for a Trump supporter!

Okay, perhaps a fair point. Rather than concede the point, however, or “walk it back”, I would like to reframe the concern.

It is true that “democratic socialism” takes pain to differentiate itself from the traditional “Socialism – writ large” to which I alluded as the potential rallying cry of the far right. Centrally state controlled, so called Marxist Leninist socialism, socialism with government coercion, socialism which we associate with USSR, China, Korea and Venezuela is not what is meant by democratic socialism. I doubt that the attack ads will take the pains to make the distinction, but that, I concede, shouldn’t make us quail at the mere label.

What, then, is “democratic socialism” and would it be a likely target? I confess the accused ignorance, since before Sander’s candidacy I was not familiar with the term. Does it envision, as I believe most Americans really would oppose, government takeover of private industry and property? Or is it more like Sweden, a free market economy with a strong safety net? I guess it depends on whom you ask. Wikipedia defines democratic socialism as existing within a democratic state, but does define it as public ownership and control of the means of production. In this country that would mean public “assumption” (take-over might be seen as too pejorative a word) of private industry. The Democratic Socialists of America softens that view somewhat, saying that most commercial and consumer oriented business would not need to be publicly owned and democratically controlled (I guess Mom and Pop can heave a sigh of relief!), but that in a large society as ours energy and large industry would need to be placed under public control. Still democratic, but envisions “worker cooperatives” owning the major industries.

So, is Bernie really a democratic socialist? Many don’t think so, and argue that his positions are really more like the European social democratic societies, where there is no question of the elimination of private property, but multiple public services such as health, transportation and education are publicly owned and universally available. That is, I believe, to all of us a much more palatable position.

Why then does Sanders not publicly and unequivocally state that this is the kind of “socialism” he means, by definition not really socialism at all! Noam Chomsky says he is not at all a socialist, really more a New Dealer! So, here is my “walk back”, or more properly, my reframing of the argument I made in the first blog, namely that the onslaught of negative advertising “tarring” him with the sobriquet of “socialist” and tying it to Marxist socialism would make him unelectable. It is probably fair to say that if Bernie clearly defined what he means by democratic socialism, clearly and consistently drew the distinction between that and the more coercive centrally planned socialism with which we often associate the word, and, most importantly clearly and consistently affirmed that he did not intend to go for a public assumption of private industry, then those attempts to brand and label him, as insistent as they certainly will be, would have minimal effect to the majority of people who might consider voting for him. I will grant this reframed point to those of you have insistently and articulately accused me of “socialiso-phobia”.

I will then continue to assert that the fact that Bernie has not made that distinction, and that he has continued to vilify big business, wall streets and billionaires (does he include Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Steve Case and Mark Zuckerberg in that lot) makes him an unnecessarily polarizing figure at at time when we need someone to reconcile and find common ground. The right has shifted to the right. If the left shifts to the left, then what kind of victory can either side have? One in which slightly less than half the country (namely the losing side in the coming election) hates the other, thinks them completely alien to their own value systems? Haven’t we had enough of that?

The last 7 years have shown us what systematic ideologues can do in a government which was designed to reach consensus. And the only reason we aren’t essentially in total standstill is that eventually the ideologues are outvoted by those who really do want to do something practical. For me, many of the things which are so often brought up as criticisms of Hillary are, at least in my mind, points in her favor. She speaks to Wall Street? Great, do you really want a President who won’t? She has worked with Republicans. Great, should we have an ideologue who prefers demonization to dialogue? Haven’t we had enough of that from the other side?

In future blogs I will explore in more depth than I am able to at present the factors leading to the vast income inequality which has grown over the last 33 years (since early Reagan). That will require some research and some reflection, it would better serve the dialogue to argue from principle and fact than personality and passion, at least I believe.

Several people responded to the blog by asking why I would support Clinton (I guess they had never met a Clinton supporter?!). I will refer them for the moment to her record on most of the issues important to us all.

Thank those of you who responded to these very early attempts to articulate my concerns, both to those who took the time to ask important direct questions and even those who, in my mind, responded ….from the heart, shall we say.

I think, I hope, there is room for more dialogue. Again, I continue to believe that those goals which all democrats seek, fair and more progressive life for each individual in this country is far more likely to come to us when we field someone who looks for consensus, dialogue, diplomacy and common ground, and if that is your shared goal, then I think the choice will be clearer.