The Swamp logo

One of History’s Dumbest Arguments

The reddest herring of American politics

By Joe DraperPublished 2 years ago 7 min read
Like

What do Norway and Venezuela have in common? What about New Zealand and the former USSR? Switzerland and North Korea?

Very little in reality, but depending on who you ask, they are all worthy of the scarlet ‘S’ of American politics.

Socialism.

Using the word ‘socialist’ to describe an individual or country is like using the word ‘polygon’ to describe a shape; it means close to nothing. It is as loose a descriptor as ‘colorful’ or ‘expensive.’ To some, socialism is a sort of economic purgatory between entrenched capitalism and utopian communism, a complex liminal state featuring collective ownership and communal farms. To others, socialism is when the government does… stuff.

In an ideal world, debates over what truly constitutes ‘socialism’ would be relegated to the nerdiest lunch tables at Harvard’s Economics Department, but in the stranger-than-fiction reality of 2021, these debates have gained national significance. As part of their post-Trump project, the American right has decided to center their political fortunes around a supposed battle between righteous capitalism and godless socialism.

As we approach T-minus 1 year to the 2022 midterms, ‘socialism’ deserves a diligent exploration; what it is, what it isn’t, and what should we do about it.

It’s not a binary

When evaluating a system’s status as ‘socialist,’ look first at control. Strictly speaking, socialism implies a system under which the state controls factors of production and exchange. By contrast, ‘capitalism’ implies an economic system controlled by the dictates of private markets. In the real world, systems exist on a spectrum, placing different economic factors under various degrees of government control. In the United States, public roads, schools, utilities, airports, and even the military are all at least academically socialist, and perennially popular programs like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid certainly are.

Generally, when Americans use the term ‘socialism,’ it is employed as a derisive reference either to the Soviet Union or modern socialist states like Venezuela. Republicans love to brand Democratic proposals for universal healthcare or education as ‘socialism’ and frequently reference the horrors of life in socialist/Marxist states as justification for their opposition to social spending. While it is undeniably effective, this tactic is remarkably cynical; I seriously doubt any conservative talking heads believe it. Implying that the United States will resemble Venezuela or the USSR if it embraces universal healthcare or raises taxes on billionaires is nonsensical. Even if state control of industry was entirely to blame for the failures of the USSR or Venezuela (it isn’t), no mainstream modern American policymaker has ever advocated for a level of state control that even flirts with USSR/Venezuela levels. “Look at Venezuela” is a bad argument.

Labeling a proposal that you don’t like as ‘socialist’ and calling it a day, isn’t good enough; it falls below the standard of productive political discourse in the world’s premier democracy. I‘m not calling on fiscal conservatives to support every proposal to increase state control of industry, bolster regulations, or increase taxes, but if their opposition is reasonable, they should be able to conjure up something better than “Stalin would have loved to raise Amazon’s taxes.”

These scare tactics illuminate just how difficult a situation Republicans find themselves in; they have to defend broadly unpopular positions on behalf of their corporate donors. Check out the interests who donate to Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, or any other conservative policymaker, and ask yourself if their animus to increased taxes on corporations and billionaires is genuinely born out of principled opposition.

Social Democracy and the future of the American Dream

How do we quantify the ever-elusive ‘American Dream’? If we assume that it implies prosperity, high social mobility, and the maximization of freedom, our current system is not worthy of the lofty ambitions of the ‘American Dream.’

Don’t believe me? Look at the numbers:

The Human Development Index (HDI) averages life expectancy, education, and GNI per capita to quantify human flourishing. The United States currently ranks 17th behind Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, the UK, Singapore, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Iceland, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Ireland, and Norway. Well, you say, even if America’s citizens are not the most prosperous in the world, they must be the most socially mobile, no? Isn’t America the place to go to do a little better than your parents did? If it was in the past, it isn’t now. The United States could only net 27th on the Global Social Mobility index. Surely though, even though we are less prosperous and socially mobile, we must be freer? America, after all, is the land of the free! While freedom is harder to quantify, the picture doesn’t look much better.

Since 2013, the research division of the UK-based Economist Group (publishers of The Economist) has evaluated the nations of the world on 60 different measures of democratic functionality to measure electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. The United States is only the world’s 25th healthiest democracy, hobbled by limited participation, gerrymandering, and corporate influence. The top of the list looks familiar, with Scandanavian, Western European, East Asian, and Oceanic nations all beating the United States at our own game.

The picture looks grim when it comes to debt as well. Medical debt, essentially nonexistent in the rest of the developed world, totals over $140 Billion in the United States. Our outcomes don’t look particularly impressive next to the astronomical price tag.While American hospitals provide an excellent standard of care, we do not have a monopoly on good hospitals. Thirty-nine of Newsweek’s 50 best hospitals in the world are outside of the United States.It is true that waiting times are generally lower in the United States, but the associated costs mean that Americans, 27 million of whom do not have health insurance, frequently skip or delay care due to cost. Medical debt is not the only freedom-reducing force at play in the American system. While American universities are undeniably excellent, the fact that Americans carry $1.5 trillion in education-related debt suggests a severe downside to our policy choices.

I don’t envy the Republican strategist who has to figure out how to spin the numbers above as a ringing endorsement of their obsession with minimizing social spending and taxes on the wealthy. The evidence appears to support the conclusion that their philosophy is fundamentally flawed. The fact of the matter is that the most prosperous nations pay more in taxes, but their investment seems to be paying off. Is this ‘socialism,’ ‘social democracy,’ or something else entirely? I don’t know, but the fact that it works remarkably well matters more to me than what to call it.

Preempting the well-worn rebuttals

The Facebook warriors of the right breathlessly warn that slothfulness and entrepreneurial stagnation will surely follow our slide into ‘socialism,’ but their predictions wither in the light of objective data. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), our ‘socialist’ Scandanavian, Western European, East Asian, and Oceanic counterparts batter us on employment. The United States ranks 28th in the world with 67% employment. By contrast, employment sits at roughly 74% in Norway and Denmark, 76% in Sweden, 77% in Germany, New Zealand, Japan, and the Netherlands, 78% in Iceland, and a whopping 80% in Switzerland. While, according to US News, the United States does manage to be the 3rd best country for entrepreneurs, Germany and Japan top the list. Sweden, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, and the UK all rank alongside us in the top 10; hardly an inspiring vindication of the status quo.

I admit that it is simplistic to suggest that copying smaller, more homogenous nations will result in the same outcomes for the United States. Still, any suggestion that the supply-side economic consensus of the past 40 years is our golden ticket back to the top seems foolish in light of the crushing evidence to the contrary.

The Reddest Herring

Last February, a Twitter user named @Voodoo_Pork managed to say in less than 280 characters what I took an entire essay to parse out:

“You know how your parents used to call every console a “Nintendo”? That’s how conservatives use the word “socialist” to describe everything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport.”

Obvious hyperbole aside, Voodoo_Pork is on to something. Using ‘socialism’ as a blind pejorative is hollow and stupid, but it genuinely seems to work. Fifty-seven percent of Americans react negatively to the word ‘socialism’ itself. The right’s ability to draw a line, however fuzzy, between Stalin and Sanders is a savvy political tactic. Voters need to understand the difference between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocating for higher taxes on the 1% in The United States, and Chavez nationalizing oil fields in Venezuela.

Alternatively, we can continue to let other developed nations leave us behind while we engage in one of history’s dumbest arguments.

opinion
Like

About the Creator

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.